It looks like they have reached their final decision:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...#Final_decision
Freedom of Expression
1) Wikipedia attracts legitimate criticism. Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to. This decision is about actual harassment, not legitimate criticism.
So Wikipedia Review is safe, right?
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
Substantially devoted to? So WR is in the clear, right? They perhaps should define "outing" too, as that generally refers to someone's sexual orientation.
23) Satirical treatment of Wikipedia, its users, errors and policies is to be expected.
So ED is in the clear too, right?
37) From time to time, Wikipedia users and administrators err, engaging in inappropriate activities which may come to our notice through external criticism.
So not only is WR in the clear, we are a good site, right?
38) Persons aggrieved by Wikipedia and its users, those banned, subjects who don't like the content of their article, subjects, or notable people, who attempt to edit and feel harassed, etc., sometimes attempt to fight back, and in addition to legitimate criticism, engage in name calling, create critical websites, attempt to determine the real identity of editors, create links to edit a user's page, etc.
Indeed, whilst whinging about your ban isn't the main reason for WR's existence, if anyone has been banned and feels like whinging they are welcome to do so, and of course they do, and sometimes its useful to discussion too.
39) Once struggle is commenced with Wikipedia, or one of its users, on an external site, Wikipedia users may attempt to respond with removal of links, or criticism of its initiator. This can rapidly degenerate into a struggle between aggrieved users and supporters of free expression or of the external site.
So we create problems?
1) AntiSocialMedia.net, a creation of the banned user WordBomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), is part of an extended campaign of harassment directed at several users.
This is against ASM and only ASM.
Inappropriate application of policy
6) In a number of instances inappropriate attempts have been made to extend the principles of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO to sites merely critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior. Those principles and those applied in this case apply only to malicious websites.
In other words, BADSITES was a bad idea
8) Except for obvious cases, such as ED, it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light.
Oh so ED is a bad site too. Count it - ASM and ED are the only 2 bad sites out there.
The community is encouraged to develop a policy
3.3) The community is encouraged to discuss and adopt a policy addressing the issue of disputed links to external sites, such as the ones discussed in this case.
Thus we have Wikipedia:Linking to external Harassment
, the backdoor version of BADSITES, created by a sock puppet account User:Privatemusings
, who may or may not be a high profile cabal member that wants to pretend that they are not really doing this...
Scope of this decision
5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior are discouraged.
In other words, WR is in the clear.
Indeed, WR looks to be shown very favourably here, except for the new proposal created by User:Privatemusings
called Wikipedia:Linking to external Harassment
, which looks dangerous.
Why can't they just say "we can't control external sites" and be done with it?