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
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
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?