-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:arromdee@rahul.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 08:19 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
I
seriously am not seeing what the difference in positions is here,
despite a lot of head-scratching.
Myself neither.
So what is the disagreement about, in practice? Is it that one side
wants a hard-line rule that can be imposed selectively?
I'll tell you what I've seen, since I've been arguing this for a while. One
side thinks that attack site links may be removed 100% of the time, a zero
tolerance policy. Another site thinks that attack site links are usually
bad, but there may be rare circumstances where they are needed, and that they
should be decided case by case.
The first side, however, has now moderated their rhetoric and sounds exactly
like the second.
My impression is that the zero-tolerance side actually wants zero tolerance
for certain particular web sites, and the Teresa Nielsen Hayden situation
caught them by surprise. Thus, they now claim "we don't support zero
tolerance" when the truth is that they don't care about TNH but still want
zero tolerance for WR and ED.