On Nov 21, 2007 1:57 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:12 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 21, 2007 11:54 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@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.
That wasn't the claim made earlier. You didn't say that it was removal due to it being by a banned editor. In fact the edit summaries don't say anything of the sort.
I beg to differ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&d...
"Rm edits from banned user." were the first words of the edit summary. That was the first admin action taken on the issue.
That's a distinct argument from claiming that the admin wasn't part of the same edit warring (and regardless I see nothing that was somehow "quiet" about those edits).
When an admin steps in to remove the edits of a banned editor, or indeed takes action where two SPA sockpuppets are edit-warring, it's not 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.
It is relevant to the original point at the start of this subthread. If you recall, the assertion was made that often the act of removing links creates more drama than it helps with two examples, Black's blog and Making Lights. You asserted that wasn't the case and that the drama in such situations was the fault of the "anti-BADSITES proponents". I'm attempting to understand how the Making Lights problem was caused by the "anti-BADSITES proponents".
Well, the original action wasn't, of course, but the constant flag-waving by the "anti-BADSITES proponents" of an error made long ago and quickly rectified and apologized for, is, of course, designed for heat not light. People make mistakes, even when applying actual policies - for example, people are regularly blocked for 3RR when they haven't actually violated 3RR. We don't then repeatedly bring up those mistakes as "proof" that the policies are bad.
(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.
We have quite a few more editors than a single one. The fact is that many people are understandably worried that something like BADSITES is going to continue either as policy or as de facto behavior. I do wish that people wouldn't focus so much on BADSITES and indeed most reasonable editors aren't doing so.
Then why does it keep being mentioned again and again and again?
But as long as the specter remains people are going to be understandably upset.
No, not understandably. It was a strawman, plain and simple, that was never policy. It's been used quite effectively for months now, but only as a strawman (or a rallying cry).
As soon as we get LINKLOVE approved (that name does sound very Orwellian, can we get a better shortcut?) this will die out.
Right, the policy created by banned sockpuppets and IP editors. That's how effective that BADSITES strawman was, actual policy editors can't even go near any policy pages attempting to deal with outside harassment any more.