-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2007 02:09 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
On 05/07/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Unless I am mistake, hasn't it been stated
above that the ruling only
applied to ED, but yet KM was apparently blocked for linking to WR.
KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements
from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and
the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely
informative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&…
and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive
material was linked to.
I predict you will see no substantive answer to this - the edit has
been retrospectively declared a "breaching experiment", much as the
person who edited WP:BADSITES to read *as it is now being applied* has
been retrospectively declared to have been trolling to sabotage it.
- d.
The telling clue is the comment, "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago
aren'tpolicy. tat ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being usedfor
harassment. this link is genuinely informative." That in the fact of a direct warning
not to do it. ~~~~
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration
that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some
doubt they apply to this particular edit.
Fred