On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info>
From: Kamryn Matika [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 10:58 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
Why did you endorse my block if this is the case? The block was enacted
solely on the ruling in the MONGO case and was applied to my reverting to
version of a page that contained a reference to
Wikipedia Review. If
was no arbitration ruling that relates to
Wikipedia Review, how is the
justification for my block valid? Why did you support it?
I didn't read the link right. In this case the link might be fine,
although Wikipedia Review is down right now. I don't support broad
generalization of the MONGO case. Glad we cleared that up. Maybe we can
resolve this. Who is it that thinks someone can be blocked for a link to
Wikipedia Review based on the MONGO case?
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Heh, okay... everyone makes mistakes.
this edit I made, and my talk page [
It seems that (in this case) ElinorD and Crum375 believe that it is OK to
block an editor for adding a link to Wikipedia Review. In this case, the
link pertained to the article as it linked to a thread on Wikipedia Review
where Essjay's deception was first brought to light, and (in my opinion)
it's quite relevant. I was warned for adding the link, based on the MONGO
ruling, and then blocked when I ignored the warning (my bad there I guess).
Is this or is this not appropriate? Thanks.
I'd just like to note for the record that I stopped adding the link precisely because
of a block threat; as Matika's followup and subsequent block shows, the threat was
USCODE CISE SIRC CIM ISN DJC LLNL bemd SGC UNCPCJ CFC SABENA DREO CDA SADRS DRA