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

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard at 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 at 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&oldid=140406328
>> 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