[WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy

[Ray Saintonge]

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 2 Jul 2007 at 17:36:03 +0000, wikien-l-request at 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