On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case and
are not principles in
the sense of being rules or policies.
Ah, right, so once we find that actually the MONGO arbitration /does/
cover this site, then arbitration rulings are no longer a precedent.
Sorry, I don't buy that. ArbCom clarifies the application of policy.
In this case they clarified that sites which harass and out
Wikipedians are attack sites, that linking to attack sites is
harassment, and that editors are responsible for their actions when
It seems to me that some people have ideological reasons for wanting
to link to Wikipedia Review. I have no idea why they would want to do
that, as a source it is not reliable, as a site which outs and
harasses Wikipedians it is not acceptable. I can't imagine any
circumstances which would justify a link, and that specifically
includes the circumstances as discussed here. Every thread on WR is
an unexploded bomb. Even if we link to a thread which seems innocuous
at the time, subsequent posts may well add gross privacy violations,
and we will have no control over that.
Are you really blind to the problems with WR? Or do you simply not
think it matters that they engage in harassment and stalking?