[WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to"attack sites"

[jayjg]

On 4/27/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
> > >On 4/26/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 4/25/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay)
> > >> > confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings
> > >> > applied to any attack site, not just to ED ...
>
> > >Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and
> > >it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to
> > >those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of pointless
> > >fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about
> > >attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
> > >
> > I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
>
> I agree. They had a field day.
>

It had a very strong [[straw man]] feel.