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

[Marc Riddell]

on 7/14/07 6:44 PM, Slim Virgin at slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> On 7/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's easy to say now, but the problem is not advocacy for WR links -
>> the problem is that no-one is in fact reining in those admins going
>> stupidly overboard in advocating full site bans. The problematic
>> behaviour keeps happening over and over again, and when called on it
>> we see (as we have on this list) that they become abusive to anyone
>> questioning their behaviour, let alone expecting them to acknowledge
>> that it could conceivably be problematic in any way whatsoever.
>> 
>> They are arguably being more disruptive and damaging to the community
>> than the damage from the attack site links itself is.
>> 
>> David, you don't know what you're talking about, and these personal attacks
>> on the list have to stop. I opposed Gracenotes' RfA because I didn't trust
>> his judgment, and there were a number of reasons for that, which I explained
>> here. 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_admin
>> ship%2FGracenotes&diff=133712259&oldid=133707616 Please read that carefully
>> before you comment again. I support people I trust, and I oppose people I
>> don't trust, and my reasoning never rests on one issue. People are entitled
>> to act on their instincts without being attacked for it.
> 
> Note that Gracenotes *during his RfA* restored a post from a WR anon
> saying I had never asked them to remove the attacks against me. It was
> nonsense and it was removed by two admins, but Gracenotes restored it.
> That is the kind of thing people opposed him over.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to
> legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why
> I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was
> happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it.
> I also don't go around removing links, and in fact can't recall when I
> last did it. I don't support the incident where a link to a blog was
> removed, but the person who did that admitted he over-reacted, and his
> apology should be accepted, which means we should stop harping on
> about it.
> 
> There's another side to your view of evil admins stomping around
> removing links added by innocent sweeties who're only trying to be
> helpful. During one of the discussions about this issue, one of the
> people on this mailing list who argues in favor of linking found some
> attacks on me from WR, including an attempt to out me, that had been
> posted to another website. Delighted, he started asking whether X was
> now an attack site, and of course he said he didn't dare link to it
> (heaven forfend!) but another editor was kind enough to tell people
> that the attacks were on website X, page Y, section Z -- only in the
> interests of informing the discussion, mind you. It probably broke his
> heart to do it.
> 
> I can't remove that discussion, because if I do, I open myself up to
> more personal attacks on this list, and I open the list up to another
> 50 e-mails from Dan Tobias. I don't want to ask anyone else to remove
> it, because then I expose them to the vitriol. So I have to pretend I
> haven't seen it, and just leave it for any passing person to read,
> knowing it was posted by someone who postures as a fellow editor. BLP
> doesn't apply to me, it seems. Please try to imagine how hurtful that
> is.
> 
> This is what Fred Bauder has been arguing. We need to create an
> environment where regular editors feel supported when they're attacked
> from outside, not one in which they get attacked even more for trying
> to defend themselves. That means not kicking up a giant fuss when
> links are removed, even if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the
> removal. It means not mocking someone over and over in public because
> he reacted badly to being outed and asked for a link to an otherwise
> decent blog to be removed. It means not taking up the cause of the
> attackers just because you think a policy proposal went too far.
> 
> If you think a bunch of admins are overegging it, e-mail them; don't
> take them to task on a mailing list. Remember that they're trying to
> be decent (no matter how misguided you think they are), as opposed to
> trying to hurt people, which is what the linkers are doing. That
> distinction is actually the only thing that matters in the end.
> 
> Sarah
> 
I feel what you are saying, Sarah. If this Community doesn't stop obsessing
about the mechanics of this Project, and start focusing on how it's people
are being treated; the only thing that will be big about it, is the hole it
leaves when it is gone.

Marc Riddell