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.