On 7/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1)
and Enforcement, so
it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold
apply only to ED;
No, it wasn't. I was there.
Then why do all the remedies apply only to ED? Why is there no mention
of setting up an official list of recognised attack sites?
Because ED was the specific site linked to in this case.
however,
it's equally clear that certain individuals
are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the
reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
James, we've moved on to sensible discussion, no more straw-man policy
hysteria labels.
Sorry, but [[WP:BADSITES]] explains quite clearly that the community
rejected it.
Again, we've moved on from the "WITCH, WITCH!!!" hysteria. We're not
talking about the straw-man BADSITES policy..
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l