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, and blindly removing any and all links to troublesome sites simply stirs up unnecessary drama, and actually causes *more* attention to be driven to those sites.
If a user posts a link in an attempt to harass another contributor, that link should be removed, and the user warned or blocked as deemed appropriate. If a good-faith editor of longstanding posts a link to a site in an attempt to invoke reasoned discussion regarding an issue, common sense should be applied, and the link removed only if it is evident that there is no or marginal benefit to retaining it.