"David Gerard" wrote
On 12/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
William Pietri wrote
Sorry for the confusion. When I say "BADSITES" I am referring to any proposed or actual policy that we not link to certain sites because there are things on them that some people don't like. I'm glad to use another name if you'd like to suggest one.
No, please respect the convention that if you write BADSITES you are talking about WP:BADSITES. I don't know why you think it is helpful to make this refer to something so general as you describe. I think if you want to talk about hypotheticals on external linking policy, and especially since you want to float the idea that some "people" want a veto on external links, you owe to the discussion to be much clearer.
I note you haven't come up with a name you prefer.
In any case, I and others will continue to refer to it as BADSITES when it's indistinguishable in practice.
You can't hinder discussion of something by trying to stop people using the names for things.
I thought I was saying that someone can easily hinder discussion by Humpty-Dumtyfying it: saying "when I say X, X means what I mean by it".
"...because there are things on them that some people don't like" ... you know, this is stupefyingly vague. It could refer to anything from an outing of a Wikipedian to blasphemy.
I think the intended reference is to a vapourpolicy WP:HIGH-HANDED, under which the "usual suspects" would be entitled to delete external links. Fill in "usual suspects" with a personal choice of "over-miighty admins", despite the apparent absence of any reference in this discussion to admins.
Oh, though, I forgot the timely reminders that this is apparently all about "banning". I should quite like to have such a "banning" happen, so that the ArbCom could throw the book at some admin who was very clearly acting in a high-handed manner.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I note you haven't come up with a name you prefer.
In any case, I and others will continue to refer to it as BADSITES when it's indistinguishable in practice.
You can't hinder discussion of something by trying to stop people using the names for things.
I thought I was saying that someone can easily hinder discussion by Humpty-Dumtyfying it: saying "when I say X, X means what I mean by it".
"...because there are things on them that some people don't like" ... you know, this is stupefyingly vague. It could refer to anything from an outing of a Wikipedian to blasphemy.
Hi, Charles. Really, I'm not trying to be difficult here. My vagueness there was intentional. Partly because I'm trying to refer to a range of possible policies. Partly because I feel that what has gone on is similarly murky. And partly because I get the impression that some people really desire to suppress discussion of things on an "I don't like it" basis.
Again, I'm glad to use a better term. I've struggled to find one.
Saying something like "link-banning policies" doesn't cover it, as I have no issue with behavior-based link banning like we do with spammers. Even "content-based link-banning policies" doesn't cover it, because at least some people propose banning a fair bit more than a particular page. Really, I'm not even sure that links are quite the issue, as I get the impression that bringing up certain topics is treated as evidence of crimethink, or at least giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and similarly worthy of suppression.
But for me, this started out with the BADSITES proposal. Although the policy has evolved, I feel like there's an ancestral relationship with today's drama, which is why I used the term to refer to the sheaf of related policies. I'm happy to adopt a better term, and would welcome suggestions. In the future, I'll try to be more careful with the term. I hope other people will be similarly aware in their reading.
Oh, though, I forgot the timely reminders that this is apparently all about "banning". I should quite like to have such a "banning" happen, so that the ArbCom could throw the book at some admin who was very clearly acting in a high-handed manner.
That's a pleasant surprise. I just peeked back in at the "Attack sites" arbitration after a few weeks, and it seems to be headed in a direction that I'm more comfortable with. Last I looked it was 2-1 in favor of banning people for linking to particular sites. I'm glad to see it has shifted.
Thanks,
William