[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Armed Blowfish]

On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Dan Tobias wrote:
>> People who oppose me in the "BADSITES" debate have been doing quite
>> a bit of imputing of motives, blackening of reputations, and the like,
>> which is ironic coming from the side that's supposedly against
>> personal attacks.
>
> Dan, it's very simple.  Try to keep up.
>
> 1. We must do everything possible to protect editors from harm.
> 2. A BADSITES-like policy would protect editors from harm.
> 3. Dan Tobias is against BADSITES-like policies.
> 4. Therefore, squelching Dan Tobias protects editors from harm.
>
> I don't see how you can be against step 4.  I guess you're not
> interested in protecting Wikipedia's editors.

No, Dan should simply be argued with.  Perhaps he will change his
mind.  Also, he has a point.  Just because someone contributes to
another attack site (read: user-contributed website) does not
mean that person deserves to be called a holocaust denier.
Some members of other attack sites (read: user-contributed
websites) have complained about being called holocaust deniers
by Wikipaedians.

Not to mention Wikipaedia itself frequently and self-righteously
attacks people.  See Google results on banned users, attempts
lasting years by hardly notable people to get their bios deleted
from Wikipaedia, etc.

Also, Wikipaedia is not the centre of the universe, or the centre
of the world, or even the centre of the internet.  There are human
beings in the world who are not Wikipaedia editors.