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 here.
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.
Pretty much the same here. In fact, for all the rhetoric directed at
me on the list, I never actually edited the "BADSITES" proposed policy
or its Talk: page.