[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy

Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika at gmail.com
Mon Jul 2 16:58:06 UTC 2007

On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 08:03 AM
> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
> >
> >On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> >> I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to
> contemplate what
> >> Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of dogs fall on someone
> after he and
> >> his ilk are in control, I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by
> and do
> >> nothing.
> >
> >The central problem in all of this is the hyperbole. At worst the
> >WR-ites are a bunch of malcontents whose not always coherent ravings
> >can be ignored by choosing not to visit their site. As a "pack of
> >dogs", they rank right up there in threat with a litter of Pekinese
> >pups.
> >
> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
> Fred
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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 a
version of a page that contained a reference to Wikipedia Review. If there
was no arbitration ruling that relates to Wikipedia Review, how is the
justification for my block valid? Why did you support it?

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list