As some have predicted, with the electronic ink not yet even dry on the BADSITES decision, the link-prohibitionists are already pushing for something more censorious than what ArbCom actually decided. JzG (who I thought had stormed off in a huff not too long ago, leaving his account "permanently") posted a series of lengthy manifestos to the WP:RFAR page in favor of imposing a ban on links to Wikipedia Review on the grounds that they don't run their forum the way JzG wishes them to run it -- banning all the same people Wikipedia has banned, banning all the topics Wikipedia has banned, pledging their fealty and loyalty to Wikipedia, Jimbo, and ArbCom, and so on. The theory seems to be that Wikipedia can and should dictate the policies of all other Web sites and forums through the strategy of banning links to uncooperative ones.
At least when *I* write lengthy manifestos, I actually call them user essays, rather than ArbCom requests for clarification.
On 19/10/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
As some have predicted, with the electronic ink not yet even dry on the BADSITES decision, the link-prohibitionists are already pushing for something more censorious than what ArbCom actually decided. JzG (who I thought had stormed off in a huff not too long ago, leaving his account "permanently") posted a series of lengthy manifestos to the WP:RFAR page [...]
He called you a single-purpose account, too, which I found deliciously ironic.