[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 04:19 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>On 9/20/07, fredbaud at waterwiki.info <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Delirium [mailto:delirium at hackish.org]
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 02:42 PM
>> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>> >
>> >fredbaud at waterwiki.info wrote:
>> >> That is not the basis on which sites are banned. They are banned because they scapegoat Wikipedia editors and administrators. SlimVirgin is not to blame for the imaginary failures of Wikipedia; she, and people like her are responsible for our real success. Scapegoating her gets us absolutely nowhere.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That may be true, but we look mighty odd when we react differently to
>> >scapegoating that relates to us than we do to scapegoating that relates
>> >to others. If someone famous scapegoats people, there's not really much
>> >we can do about it. Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't be making idiotic
>> >comments, but for better or worse he's famous and he does. We have
>> >plenty of his idiotic comments reported many of our articles, but it
>> >seems that when they're about *us* suddenly we get a lot more touchy.
>> >Which is a bit too self-referential for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia.
>> >
>> >-Mark
>
>That's a great clarification. I haven't seen anything that explicit
>in the Arbcom case proposed decision so far...
>
>PLEASE, give us some guidance that can stick, if (collective you) are
>going to make the policy any more specific.

I'm not sure we (the arbitrators) would agree on this point (that it was ever proper to remove the link to MichaelMoore.com).

And actually, we didn't necessarily agree to consider that question. Should we?

Fred