Thanks for the summary, Charles. One question.
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
4.2) Linking to external sites which contain
information harmful to another
person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
I can read this in two ways depending on what "so as to harass" refers
to, the linking or the containing. One reading is that linking so as to
harass is unacceptable. The other is that linking to sites that harass
is unacceptable.
When I first read this, I assumed that the Arbitration Committee meant
the first, which is an obvious extension of WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, or
WP:CIVIL, take your pick.
But now that I look at it again, I see it could be read as a very broad
thing. I could make a good case for delinking both Bill O Reilly and
Michael Moore's sites, among many others, based on the second reading.
Could you clarify which the AC had in mind? And is it possible to
clarify it in the text, possibly via minor rewording?
You can see in the real case that the precise wording was argued through 4 and 4.1.
Lawyers hate commas, but read it as
"Linking to external sites, which contain information harmful to another person, so
as to harass them, is unacceptable."
Bear in mind we are working with a definite idea of harassment (of Wikipedians).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from