-----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@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&a... 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