No subject

> And considering of 1000 admins what fraction are active on most
> policy pages (50 at most?) 2 isn't a non-trivial amount.

2 *non*-admins. Out of many thousands of editors.

> Keep in mind that I'm
> not arguing that there was a majority for it, merely that there were
> people who
> were established editors who didn't see it as a strawman.

Yes, it fooled a number of people. It seems to me it fooled far more
people on the anti-BADSITES side than on the pro; the former have
certainly gotten vastly more mileage out of it.

>
> >> >> As
> >> >> soon as we get LINKLOVE approved (that name does sound very
> >> >> Orwellian, can we
> >> >> get a better shortcut?) this will die out.
> >> >
> >> > Right, the policy created by banned sockpuppets and IP editors. That's
> >> > how effective that BADSITES strawman was, actual policy editors can't
> >> > even go near any policy pages attempting to deal with outside
> >> > harassment any more.
> >>
> >> What do you mean? David Gerard and others have had no problem
> >> discussing this.
> >
> > Because no-one is going to accusing David of being a Communist, err,
> > BADSITES supporter.
>
> Um, what? Is this some sort of claim that BADSITES proponents are being
> Mcarthied? Forgive me if I don't see much evidence for that claim.

I don't think you would be particularly sensitive to it, given your
own feelings on the matter.

>
> >> And frankly, who made a policy has nothing to do with whether or not it is a
> >> good idea. Daniel Brandt could say "1+1=2" and the fact that it came from
> >> Brandt would have nothing to do with whether or not the statement is true.
> >
> > It's a bad idea to have sockpuppets of banned editors writing our
> > policies; that should be common sense, I would think.
>
> Yes, but if a user is banned happens to propose a kerner of a good idea
> there's
> no need to reject it based on the who it came from.

But it wasn't proposing a kernel of a good idea, it was dozens of
edits to create a policy.

> (And point of fact PM is
> not a sockpuppet of a banned user so...)

User:BenB4 was, and he created the page, and was by far the single
largest contributor to the page, so...

As for PM, that's only a technicality; he was a sockpuppet, and only
unbanned so he could participate in an ArbCom case about his banning.