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.