Should I not cite an arxiv.org paper which otherwise seems to be unpublished?

I think you should always cite a paper on the arXiv, if it would be appropriate to cite the paper at all.

I want to strongly encourage people to put preprints of the arXiv. It makes mathematics more open. It's incredibly useful for following what's going on in fields not quite your own, or if you are not in personal contact with everyone in your field. However, I know mathematicians who do not put preprints on the arxiv (or only do so just before publication) because they are worried about "losing citations". Sadly it seems that many funding agencies and universities are starting to use citation data; so it will become more important for citations not to be "lost".

Thus, it would seem that a culture of not citing arXiv papers (just because they are on the arXiv) is going to encourage people not to use the arXiv, which I think is a bad thing.

Of course, as Willie says, you should be very careful about proofs. But, as other questions on MathOverflow have suggested, just because a paper is formally published doesn't ensure that it's correct, and not all referees carefully read proofs. So, you should always be careful. Also, it takes so long for the refereeing and printing process to happen that quite often, what starts out as a reference to the arXiv will become a reference to a published paper, by the time your paper makes it to galley stage.

I would agree, though, that if a paper has been on the arxiv for a long time, but seemingly hasn't appeared in print, then you might want to be extra careful (and under such circumstances, I think actually writing something to warn the reader would be okay).

[It is] Not really [bad to cite an arXiv paper]^*. If the paper on arXiv provides the result you want, you are free to cite it. Before the arXiv, citing "private communication" or "pre-print" is not unheard of. On the other hand, since it hasn't been peer reviewed, you probably should double check and make sure you understand and believe the paper before you cite it (if you use one of its results crucially) (not that you shouldn't do the same for peer-reviewed papers, just that one may want to be extra careful with referring to pre-prints).

Note that there are two reasons for citations. The first is to give credit where credit is due: you do not want to look like you are appropriating someone else's result (or in some cases, inadvertently slighting somebody by sin of omission). The second is to provide references for assertions made without proof in your paper. Obviously if you are citing for the former reason, a paper is arXiv is really no different from a paper in a published journal. If the author's right, you covered your bases. If he was wrong, then better for you, perhaps. It is with the latter case you need to be more careful. If the paper has been on arXiv for a long time and not appeared in any journals (definition of "long time" of course vary from field to field), you may want to be a bit cautious in deciding whether the foundation to your house is sound.

Also, how do you know "no publication or review seems to be in the pipeline"? I know several people (myself included) who would only include the journal ref on arXiv after it has been accepted for publication. Perhaps you should double check with the original author whether it has been submitted, and if not, why not?

^* As Joel pointed out in his comments to the original question, and Emerton in his comments to this answer, there is some ambiguity as to which question I was answering.

As has already been noted: there are two reasons to cite a paper, an email, a letter, or anything else:

(1) To give credit.

(2) To refer to a result you need.

If a citation is for reason (1), you should cite anything and everything that is appropriate. If someone explained a result to you in an email, cite them, or at least acknowledge them in the paper. If you rely on the results of a preprint, or a preprint proves important results germaine to your own work, you should cite it (whether it appeared on the arxiv or not!).

As for reason (2), it is up to you. In general, you shouldn't be relying on results unless you are confident that they are true. Typically, it is up to you to determine your own threshhold of confidence, and if publication in a peer-reviewed journal increases your confidence, you can take that into account. But in this context you must still take into account criterion (1): i.e. even if you avoid relying on an unpublished result out of a sense of caution, but that unpublished result is closely related to what you are doing, you should still mention it. (A typical situation might be that you need a special case of an unpublished result that it is easy for you to prove directly, and you prefer to do so rather than rely on the unpublished result; then you can certainly do so, but you should point out that what you have proved is a special case of the more general result, and cite that more general result.)

One thing to note is that some journals may not accept your paper if it relies crucially on unpublished results (including unpublished results of yours!). Thus, if you rely on such results, you may want to include a sketch of the proof, so as to make your presentation somewhat self-contained. In this case, if you giving a sketch of the proof of someone elses result, be sure to include appropriate citations from category (1) above!