On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
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,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?