[WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on

[Fred Bauder]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee at rahul.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 08:19 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
>
>On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
>> > I seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here,
>> > despite a lot of head-scratching.
>> 
>> Myself neither.
>> 
>> So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side
>> wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
>
>I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One
>side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero
>tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually
>bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they
>should be decided case by case.
>
>The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly
>like the second.
>
>My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance
>for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation
>caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero
>tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want
>zero tolerance for WR and ED.

That's correct.

Fred