On Nov 21, 2007 1:12 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Nov 21, 2007 11:54 AM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>et>:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> BADSITES has proven to be an extremely convenient way of distracting
> attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and
> non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its
> author ever dreamed it would.
Yes, I think you are right. We had an IP turn up out of the blue
yesterday and mark some current proposals as "rejected" due to
BADSITES, including one that was specifically motivated by the
rejection of BADSITES and seeks to do what the last ArbCom
suggested, namely write a workable policy.
Of course, it is incredibly important to WR that they retain the
ability to add links. Not because they want to, but because it
keeps the site in the public mind. Without the constant harping it
would have been forgotten by now as just another festival of stupid.
As far as I can tell, removing WR links has generally created more
drama than
allowing them to stay.
That's a pretty circular argument. I could as easily (and, in fact
more accurately) say that it is the loud restoration of such links
that intentionally creates the drama. The Robert Black case is a
perfect example. A sockpuppet deletes the link, then another
sockpuppet *conveniently shows up almost immediately* to revert,
crying "REVERT BLATANT CENSORSHIP!!!!!" A respected and established
admin quietly removes the link, then even more sockpuppets show up to
start edit-warring with admins over it. Finally, an actual established
editor and leader in the anti-BADSITES movement notices the hubbub,
and shows up to edit-war over the link. Then other editors say "OMG,
look at all the drama, it must be caused by that BADSITES proposal
again, I can't believe all those people were proponents of it, it's
such a bad idea!" Mission accomplished.
Drama plays into the hands of the anti-BADSITES proponents, just as
the whole strawman policy did in the first place. That's why they
insist on drama.
I'm confused, after drama was ongoing how did a "A respected and established
admin" quietly remove the link? That was just as much part of the edit-warring
and drama as another comment.
When sockpuppets edit war for the purpose of drawing and creating
attention it's one thing. When an admin steps in and takes action to
revert the actions of a banned editor, it's another. By your
definition any admin who takes action against a banned editor could
also be accused of creating drama.
Furthermore, this isn't the only example. I'd
love to see for example an
explanation of how the Making Lights fiasco was somehow a result of the
"anti-BADSITES proponents".
I'm not sure I understand this point.
(Incidentally, as someone who was and remains
strongly opposed to BADSITES I object to your characterization of such editors
as part of an amorphous "they" who desire "drama").
"BADSITES" itself is the rallying cry. So far we seem to have a whole
bunch of people who have been going around for months now VERY LOUDLY
"opposing" something that was proposed as a strawman, and apparently
supported as policy by one editor.