I agree with you that it should say what the actual expectation is. As far
as I can tell, the only unopposed removals of all links to a site were the
removals to ED following the MONGO ruling; there hasn't been another
unopposed attempt since then, so the reality is that admins (and for that
matter, any user) is well justified to remove links to attack content. And,
as with any other kind of personal attack, admins can block the person
instigating the attack.
Risker
On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/28/07, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I completely agree with Slim that this was
started by someone who had
some
pretty murky ulterior motives; I'll take her
word that it was a
sock. The
question is how to stanch the bad practices that
are flowing from it.
The most straightforward way would be to mark BADSITES as either
rejected or
historic, and to remove the disputed section in
the current
policy. (That
takes care of the messy attempt made by
DennyColt.) As far as I can
tell,
there was absolutely no objection to the idea of
including a statement
in
the current NPA policy supporting the removal of
any links where the
content
of the link met the definition of a personal
attack, regardless of the
origin of the content.
The policy should describe what admins actually do. Most admins that
I'm aware of remove these links when they see them, not in a
systematic way, but if they happen to find one. There are very few
situations where they're added legitimately.
The way to defeat the troll is probably to stop talking about the
issue, because that's what he wanted. We have an ArbCom ruling, and we
have admins who can implement it sensibly. If anyone sees a silly
implementation of it, please e-mail that admin and put them straight.
End of story.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l