On 2 Jul 2007 at 17:36:03 +0000, wikien-l-request@lists.wikime wrote:
No, I just read the link wrong. I made a mistake. Good thing I wasn't flying an airplane : I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. Or stirred them up unnecessarily.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've "stirred" something up unnecessarily as a result of your failure to properly understand policy or the facts of a situation. A couple of months ago, on this list, you were pushing an odd interpretation of the WP:BLP policy that allegedly held that, if any admin claimed that BLP was being violated, and deleted an article as a result, then this decision was unreviewable and unassailable, except by a full-blown Arbcom case, even if the original admin was completely wrongheaded about it. (And, given that somebody recently even attempted a serious argument to the effect that [[Jesus Christ]] was covered by BLP because he rose from the grave, one can't be sure of the policy always being applied sensibly; the checks and balances of normal policy and process are important for helping this.) You were claiming (with no justification) that all of this was provided in the BLP policy, but had to back down from that, and the policy now is that normal process such as DRV can in fact be applied, though there's a presumption in favor of keeping deleted in the case of BLPs anyway.
I expect much better from somebody in a position of trust who's tasked with interpreting policy and passing judgment on Wikipedians.
On 7/2/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've "stirred" something up unnecessarily as a result of your failure to properly understand policy or the facts of a situation. A couple of months ago, on this list, you were pushing an odd interpretation of the WP:BLP policy that allegedly held that, if any admin claimed that BLP was being violated, and deleted an article as a result, then this decision was unreviewable and unassailable, except by a full-blown Arbcom case, even if the original admin was completely wrongheaded about it. (And, given that somebody recently even attempted a serious argument to the effect that [[Jesus Christ]] was covered by BLP because he rose from the grave, one can't be sure of the policy always being applied sensibly; the checks and balances of normal policy and process are important for helping this.) You were claiming (with no justification) that all of this was provided in the BLP policy, but had to back down from that, and the policy now is that normal process such as DRV can in fact be applied, though there's a presumption in favor of keeping deleted in the case of BLPs anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnje...
Kirill
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 2 Jul 2007 at 17:36:03 +0000, wikien-l-request@lists.wikime wrote:
No, I just read the link wrong. I made a mistake. Good thing I wasn't flying an airplane : I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. Or stirred them up unnecessarily.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've "stirred" something up unnecessarily as a result of your failure to properly understand policy or the facts of a situation. A couple of months ago, on this list, you were pushing an odd interpretation of the WP:BLP policy that allegedly held that, if any admin claimed that BLP was being violated, and deleted an article as a result, then this decision was unreviewable and unassailable, except by a full-blown Arbcom case, even if the original admin was completely wrongheaded about it. (And, given that somebody recently even attempted a serious argument to the effect that [[Jesus Christ]] was covered by BLP because he rose from the grave, one can't be sure of the policy always being applied sensibly; the checks and balances of normal policy and process are important for helping this.) You were claiming (with no justification) that all of this was provided in the BLP policy, but had to back down from that, and the policy now is that normal process such as DRV can in fact be applied, though there's a presumption in favor of keeping deleted in the case of BLPs anyway.
I expect much better from somebody in a position of trust who's tasked with interpreting policy and passing judgment on Wikipedians.
You have made some valid points, but the important thing about the thread is not in attacking Fred, but in pointing out the failings in the ruling. What is most irritating about the decision is the final phrase, "under any circumstances."
Most of us are not likely to have any desire to link to the subject sites anyway, with or without this prohibition. Doing so would be too infantile, and probably too boring, but we can conceive the possibility of circumstances where a link would be sensible. Such links exist in a context, and I think that I can safely speculate that individuals who would get such a matter to the point of their being a consideration by Arbcom did so by doing more than just add a link. One cannot foretell what some other person's reasons for adding the link will be. There is little point for making those arguments, when one has no ib=nention to create the links in the first place.
Zero tolerance policies are rarely constructive bcause they make no allowance for the long tail.
Ec