From: David Gerard [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2007 02:09 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 05/07/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Unless I am mistake, hasn't it been stated
above that the ruling only
applied to ED, but yet KM was apparently blocked for linking to WR.
KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements
from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and
the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely
and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive
material was linked to.
I predict you will see no substantive answer to this - the edit has
been retrospectively declared a "breaching experiment", much as the
person who edited WP:BADSITES to read *as it is now being applied* has
been retrospectively declared to have been trolling to sabotage it.
The telling clue is the comment, "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago
aren'tpolicy. tat ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being usedfor
harassment. this link is genuinely informative." That in the fact of a direct warning
not to do it. ~~~~
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration
that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some
doubt they apply to this particular edit.