On 03/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's a site that was blocked after sliding all the way down the "slippery slope", in the best of faith.
A "slide" that lasted all of couple of hours, and was quickly reversed. Hardly a crisis.
The problem is that it was in the best of faith, and was nevertheless stupid and damaging.
BADSITES is an odious, stupid and damaging policy. Please stop pushing it.
This isn't about the BADSITES policy, this is about the MONGO case.
This is about the policy bearing an unmistakable resemblance to BADSITES, where editors are *actually being blocked* for edits which the arbitrator who wrote the original wording in the case says aren't covered by it.
How is this not a problem? How is arbitrary blocking under guise of a woefully misinterpreted arbitration decision not a problem?
- d.