On 10/19/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
I mean, what on earth.
For those wondering, this is the site in question:
http://lunasantin.blogspot.com/And these are the relevant history entry comments from Luna Santin's user page:
08:48 - Gurch: "remove link to attack site" 08:54 - Hoary: "reinstating link to a mild blog that shows no sign of being an 'attack site'" 11:24 - Gurch: "It disusses Wikipedia contributors off-site, that's good enough for WP:BADSITES <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BADSITES>. Yes I know that was rejected, but if people can fail RfA for not enforcing it, clearly it's de facto policy" 11:54 - Lucasbfr: "rv, seriously... I don't see how Luna's blog is a 'website set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing WP's volunteers' (from the recent RFAr). You should discuss it with Luna" 11:59 - Gurch: "revert" 12:37 - Daniel: "Rubbish, Luna is afforded latitude as an established contributor, and this falls within bounds that consensus currently dictates." 13:23 - Gurch: "(latitude as an established contributor? so Kelly Martin is not an established contributor? how about Gracenotes?" 13:26 - Daniel: "What?"William
This is bizarre.
I would think this was a POINTy attack on the absurdity of BADSITES, but I fear he may have been serious...
I think this is too strange to call it a policymaking event, though.