[WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to "attack sites"

[Slim Virgin]

On 4/25/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am honestly speechless. Since when was it permissible to enforce a
> > proposed policy? In any other day and age, those responsible would have been
> > ticked off appropriately. It seems that the Mongo judgment may be being
> > stretched a little here; perhaps it would be appropriate for the Arbcom to
> > clarify their judgment?
>
> (speaking as a single Arbitrator and not for the committee as a whole ...)
>
> The Arbcom judgment was specifically about Encyclopedia Dramatica and
> did not explicitly state that it should be extended to other attack
> sites, so it is inappropriate to say that removing links to another
> site is 'enforcing the MONGO decision' since we didn't say anything
> about removing links to any other site.

Matt, the Mongo decision said:

*"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are
exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds
for blocking," and

*"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private
information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will
be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from
Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites

Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay)
confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings
applied to any attack site, not just to ED.

Sarah