From: James Farrar [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 04:03 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
On 10/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:50:16 -0700, Ray
< snip a lot, but in particular: >
There's a big difference between clarifying
policy and expanding policy.
Yes. And in this case they *clarified* policy. Policy is: no privacy
violations, no attacks, no stalking, no harassment. Clarification is:
not even by writing it elsewhere and then linking to it.
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web
*pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users.
What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web
*sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen
any justification for such a ban.
OK, here you are:
It is helpful to support productive editors and administrators and protect them from
harassment both on and off Wikipedia. Certain sites contain little or no critical
discussion, but a great deal of material which either attempts to identify anonymous
Wikipedia editors or to harass them in some way.
You complain about the justification being repeated, but continue to say you see no