On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:44:11 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
I stand corrected. In any event the point- removal of an edit by a banned user is distinct from the original claim and in any event is not "quiet".
Not to mention that, in this case, the original link removal was done by another banned user, so anybody truly following a policy of "revert all links by banned users" would need to go back to the version before any of the trolling sockpuppets got to it... which happens to be the version that includes the link. Selectively reverting one of the banned users may suit an ideology that says that the link is bad, but don't pretend it's a simple enforcement of the policy on banned users.
No, Dan, that is not really fair. The sockpuppet that replaced the link was identified almost immediately as such, having gone to some lengths to ensure that would happen; the sock who removed it was only identified as a sock a week later.
What is absolutely clear here - *absolutely* clear - is that we were deliberately trolled by Wikipedia Review. And a major part of the success of that trolling was: you, I'm afraid. Your consistent and persistent assertion that any removal of any link was necessarily BADSITES, the fact that even now you are raising BADSITES despite numerous attempts by others to move on from that, this is what makes a silly mistake into a drama. As Jayjg noted above, it's the reinsertion as ZOMG! CENSORSHIP! NO BADSITES! that usually starts the whole festival of stupid.
Jayjg characterises BADSITES as a very effective strawman. This is spot in, I think. And you've been one of the people most obviously taken in by that.
Not many of us are guilt free here, of course. But some of us are engaged in trying to make actual progress and a workable guideline (nothing, of course, can be proof against the well-intentioned but clueless or the determined abuser). You, on the other hand, still seem to be standing there shouting "And another thing!" after the departing crowd.
This is, of course, a slight exaggeration for the sake of picturesque language, but only a very slight exaggeration. Why not just sit back for a week and see what emerges on the various talk pages, now that we're finally nailing some of the more disruptive single-purpose and sockpuppet accounts?
Guy (JzG)