On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:31:16 -0500, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
I stand corrected. In any event the point- removal of
an edit by a banned user
is distinct from the original claim and in any event is not "quiet".
Not to mention that, in this case, the original link removal was done by another banned
user,
so anybody truly following a policy of "revert all links by banned users" would
need to go back
to the version before any of the trolling sockpuppets got to it... which happens to be the
version that includes the link. Selectively reverting one of the banned users may suit an
ideology that says that the link is bad, but don't pretend it's a simple
enforcement of the policy
on banned users.
See David's reponse to this. The fact hat Will
seemed to maintain well
after the
fact that this was still a problem and the fact that Tony, Mongo and Thuranx
continued to push for some form of BADSITES means that it wasn't nearly
as much
a strawman or as dead as it should have been.
Not to mention that, as recently as the ArbCom case on attack sites, an admin (ElinorD)
attempted to suppress commentary that included a link to Making Light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio…
rkshop&diff=next&oldid=160118695
It's clear that abuse of the pseudo-policy on "attack sites" did not end
with the failure of
BADSITES or the apology of BeBack on the Making Light issue.
Dan
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/