More stuff has happened in the fight over linking to Brandt's site in a Wikipedia Signpost article on him. Apparently, taking out that link really pissed Brandt off. (OK... sometimes bad policy decisions can have good effects.) Writing on one of those infamous Attack Sites, Brandt threatened to bring back his Hive Mind 2 page (the one with admins, not regular editors) unless Wikipedia (or whoever has final authority over Signpost) reinstates the link right away. (Bad move on Brandt's part... if he kept his mouth shut, there'd be plenty of pro-free-speech, anti-silly-link-policy editors like me around to fight for putting back the link as relevant and reasonable for that article... but some of us aren't nearly so eager to fight for giving in to a Brandt Ultimatum.)
And, following this, somebody wrote about it on [[WP:AN/I]], giving a link to Brandt's comments on the other site (reasonable... how is anybody supposed to know what he said, and in what context, otherwise?), and some of the succeeding comments criticized this insertion of yet another Link To An Attack Site (though, as of now, nobody has actually removed the link).
Why is "pissing Brandt" off considered to be a "good effect"? A step towards escalating a conflict is never a step in the right direction.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Apparently, taking out that link really pissed Brandt off. (OK... sometimes bad policy decisions can have good effects.)
Blu Aardvark wrote:
Why is "pissing Brandt" off considered to be a "good effect"? A step towards escalating a conflict is never a step in the right direction.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Apparently, taking out that link really pissed Brandt off. (OK... sometimes bad policy decisions can have good effects.)
I'd call it 'institutionalised trolling'.
Maybe it is time for the 3 Minute Hate again.
Doc