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

[John Lee]

On 7/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:20:59 +1000, Mark Gallagher
> <fuddlemark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If someone links to WR maliciously, we deal with it as a personal attack
> >... and get all the benefits we would get from I Can't Believe It's Not
> >BADSITES[0] and similar products.  If someone finds one of those
> >legitimate reasons to link to WR that Guy has been so scornful of, a
> >links accordingly, we don't have a problem.
>
> I'm not scornful, I just haven't seen one yet.  But of course we will
> simply come back to the same old problem: the people who passionately
> want to link to that thread on WR simply will not accept any rationale
> for not doing so, whoever it comes from.  Any argument that opposes
> that link is, in their view, an invalid argument, because they
> consider it an appropriate link.  The length of these threads shows
> that there are a large number of people who think it is *not*
> appropriate.
>
> This is the recurring theme throughout the debate.  Anyone who comes
> along and exhibits a flexible approach is welcomed as a friend right
> up to the point where the specific link is discussed and rejected, at
> which point we have to go round the whole loop again because suddenly
> they are one of the evil BADSITES people.
>
> In the end, we are never going to persuade Dan Tobias that the thread
> he wants to link is unacceptable in the eyes of sufficient people that
> inclusion is not going to happen.  If he was able to accept this and
> drop it, we would have stopped the discussion months back, but he
> seems very determined to keep asking until he gets the answer he
> wants.


Wait, Dan wants to link to WR? I thought he was just railing against the
blanket ban so repeatedly till even I got tired of reading his posts, as
much as I agree with them.

And FWIW, I'm all for permabanning idiots who don't get that links which
constitute personal attacks aren't allowed. What I'm not for is a blanket
ban of certain sites just because they have a history of posting personal
attacks. (ED is the exception to the rule, of course. Every rule has cases
which don't fit the normal principles, and rigidly enforcing the principle I
am advocating would be just as disastrous as rigidly enforcing a blanket
ban.)

Johnleemk