On 7/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily
specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user;
such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack
site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
As I suggested in an earlier email on this topic (I can't find it just
now, but it's in the main thread) it's necessary to read the
principles together, and not just to read #3 on its own. The
principles are not specific to ED, but together they do have a very
strong focus on harassment and the disclosure of personal information
as specific categories of behaviour, and sites which engage in those
sorts of behaviour should not be linked to.
I should note that these specific behaviours are ones which have a
pretty strongly established definition already, as behaviours which
would be blockable if performed on-wiki. These few arbitration cases
are really just making a logical extension from the existing approach
to on-wiki behaviour.