On 7/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
That's easy to say now, but the problem is
not advocacy for WR links -
the problem is that no-one is in fact reining in those admins going
stupidly overboard in advocating full site bans. The problematic
behaviour keeps happening over and over again, and when called on it
we see (as we have on this list) that they become abusive to anyone
questioning their behaviour, let alone expecting them to acknowledge
that it could conceivably be problematic in any way whatsoever.
They are arguably being more disruptive and damaging to the community
than the damage from the attack site links itself is.
David, you don't know what you're talking about, and these personal attacks
on the list have to stop. I opposed Gracenotes' RfA because I didn't trust
his judgment, and there were a number of reasons for that, which I explained
ship%2FGracenotes&diff=133712259&oldid=133707616 Please read that carefully
before you comment again. I support people I trust, and I oppose people I
don't trust, and my reasoning never rests on one issue. People are entitled
to act on their instincts without being attacked for it.
Note that Gracenotes *during his RfA* restored a post from a WR anon
saying I had never asked them to remove the attacks against me. It was
nonsense and it was removed by two admins, but Gracenotes restored it.
That is the kind of thing people opposed him over.
Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to
legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why
I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was
happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it.
I also don't go around removing links, and in fact can't recall when I
last did it. I don't support the incident where a link to a blog was
removed, but the person who did that admitted he over-reacted, and his
apology should be accepted, which means we should stop harping on
There's another side to your view of evil admins stomping around
removing links added by innocent sweeties who're only trying to be
helpful. During one of the discussions about this issue, one of the
people on this mailing list who argues in favor of linking found some
attacks on me from WR, including an attempt to out me, that had been
posted to another website. Delighted, he started asking whether X was
now an attack site, and of course he said he didn't dare link to it
(heaven forfend!) but another editor was kind enough to tell people
that the attacks were on website X, page Y, section Z -- only in the
interests of informing the discussion, mind you. It probably broke his
heart to do it.
I can't remove that discussion, because if I do, I open myself up to
more personal attacks on this list, and I open the list up to another
50 e-mails from Dan Tobias. I don't want to ask anyone else to remove
it, because then I expose them to the vitriol. So I have to pretend I
haven't seen it, and just leave it for any passing person to read,
knowing it was posted by someone who postures as a fellow editor. BLP
doesn't apply to me, it seems. Please try to imagine how hurtful that
This is what Fred Bauder has been arguing. We need to create an
environment where regular editors feel supported when they're attacked
from outside, not one in which they get attacked even more for trying
to defend themselves. That means not kicking up a giant fuss when
links are removed, even if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the
removal. It means not mocking someone over and over in public because
he reacted badly to being outed and asked for a link to an otherwise
decent blog to be removed. It means not taking up the cause of the
attackers just because you think a policy proposal went too far.
If you think a bunch of admins are overegging it, e-mail them; don't
take them to task on a mailing list. Remember that they're trying to
be decent (no matter how misguided you think they are), as opposed to
trying to hurt people, which is what the linkers are doing. That
distinction is actually the only thing that matters in the end.
I feel what you are saying, Sarah. If this Community doesn't stop obsessing
about the mechanics of this Project, and start focusing on how it's people
are being treated; the only thing that will be big about it, is the hole it
leaves when it is gone.