On 5/28/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins
are there to protect
the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much
protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up
for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with
this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's
removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a
little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here?
I wholly agree.
I note that Gracenotes appears to have said that what he is
uncomfortable with is a blanket ban with no room for judgment or
common sense.
The BADSITES proposal in its current form does not appear to have
consensus among either Wikpedians as a whole or admins in particular.
Are those who oppose Gracenotes going to now try and get admins who
disagree with BADSITES desysopped as well?
For that matter, I disagree with the wholly absolutist BADSITES
proposal as it currently stands. Are they going to try and get me
removed from the arbcom because of that?
I believe there IS reasonable consensus for a saner policy in this
area, but not this.
-Matt