On 5/28/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 28, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.
And Gracenotes, in my reading of his RFA, does not disagree with this. But in the face of such blinding idiocy as Will Beback's removing citations to reliable sources, is it any wonder that he's a little suspicious of the merits of a bright line distinction here?
I wholly agree.
I note that Gracenotes appears to have said that what he is uncomfortable with is a blanket ban with no room for judgment or common sense.
The BADSITES proposal in its current form does not appear to have consensus among either Wikpedians as a whole or admins in particular.
Are those who oppose Gracenotes going to now try and get admins who disagree with BADSITES desysopped as well?
For that matter, I disagree with the wholly absolutist BADSITES proposal as it currently stands. Are they going to try and get me removed from the arbcom because of that?
I believe there IS reasonable consensus for a saner policy in this area, but not this.
-Matt