On 7/3/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The person who did that got upset because he was outed, and he reacted badly, which he later admitted. It was a very human response, and it's unfair to keep on using it as a weapon.
But that's going to be the normal use of this policy proposal. As far as I can tell, people aren't creating new links to the Three Bad Sites, so in that wise there are only the few hundred existing links to be concerned with. Nobody at the moment does seem concerned (except for MONGO's outburst against Wikitruth), so until the next time someone tries to invoke one of them in an RfC or ArbCom action, they do not enter into the picture. But sites like TNH's blog will be the ones that are targetted, because we cannot keep them from naming people when they see fit to do so; and the policy would be waiting for someone to invoke against them.
What we're talking about is very simple.
What we are talking about is not at all simple. It takes place in a context of considerable conflict of interest and in the realities of interpersonal and group dynamics that no amount of good faith can cover. You and MONGO and Jayjg spend a lot of time attacking WR, to the point where it seems to me that you don't care about the side effects of your campaign against them. I'm not really trying to protect linking to them that much, but I think they should in general be treated like other sites that we might link to. And yes: except for the huge volume of wikilegal reference to WR, there isn't a lot of strong reason to link to it. But people only really care about these links because of the campaign to rease them in the first place.