Slim Virgin wrote:
It was more general than that. They found that:
"A website that
engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning
the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack
site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under
any circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links…
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private
information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone
once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was
confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and
certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are
relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review
is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these
occasions exist, and blindly removing any and all links to troublesome
sites simply stirs up unnecessary drama, and actually causes *more*
attention to be driven to those sites.
If a user posts a link in an attempt to harass another contributor, that
link should be removed, and the user warned or blocked as deemed
appropriate. If a good-faith editor of longstanding posts a link to a
site in an attempt to invoke reasoned discussion regarding an issue,
common sense should be applied, and the link removed only if it is
evident that there is no or marginal benefit to retaining it.