On 11/30/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:22:09 -0500, "The
Mangoe"
<the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Guy, if we are going to start down the
"unsupported assertion" route,
>we can start with "There exists on Wikipedia a small group of people
>who will reflexively revert any removal of any link to external
>harassment, shouting 'ZOMG! BADSITES!' and calling the world to come
>and look." In an discussion with a point, it seems to me to be more
>worthwhile to address the statement whether or not it is supported.
Oh, wait, we cited a diff for that, didn't we.
Never mind.
Did you? It's a semi-serious question: the original message I quoted
from is lost in the swamp of the archives, so maybe there was. As for
the Robert Black case, if the admins had simply done the reversion of
the erasure themselves, probably it would have amounted to even less
than what happened. Instead, it appears that they took advantage of
someone else starting the game to put in a few innings on BADSITES's
behalf.