On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Arbcom principles only apply to the specific case and are not principles in the sense of being rules or policies.
Ah, right, so once we find that actually the MONGO arbitration /does/ cover this site, then arbitration rulings are no longer a precedent.
Sorry, I don't buy that. ArbCom clarifies the application of policy. In this case they clarified that sites which harass and out Wikipedians are attack sites, that linking to attack sites is harassment, and that editors are responsible for their actions when doing so.
It seems to me that some people have ideological reasons for wanting to link to Wikipedia Review. I have no idea why they would want to do that, as a source it is not reliable, as a site which outs and harasses Wikipedians it is not acceptable. I can't imagine any circumstances which would justify a link, and that specifically includes the circumstances as discussed here. Every thread on WR is an unexploded bomb. Even if we link to a thread which seems innocuous at the time, subsequent posts may well add gross privacy violations, and we will have no control over that.
Are you really blind to the problems with WR? Or do you simply not think it matters that they engage in harassment and stalking?
Guy (JzG)