[WikiEN-l] BADSITES vs RFA

[George Herbert]

On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That is: Gracenotes referred to BADSITES, and SlimVirgin opposed
> > > because he failed to oppose all links in any circumstances.
>
> > I opposed to begin with because Gracenotes posted to Wikipedia Review
> > in opposition to these sites being placed on the spam blacklist, and
> > then wrote in response to Q4: "I suppose you mean attack sites as
> > those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without
> > the intent of improving Wikipedia."
> > That wasn't what I meant, it wasn't what the ArbCom said, and all
> > these sites claim they intend to improve Wikipedia, so by that
> > definition, there are no attack sites. I then also opposed because of
> > the bot approval issue, the unclear answers, the inflated edit count
> > from the automated script, and the low talk page participation.
>
>
> Complete text of your oppose: "Strong oppose. I have to oppose
> based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel
> that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked
> to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would
> ever have to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"
>
> That looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES, and BADSITES was
> referenced by that name in Gracenotes' answer which you referred to in
> your oppose.
>
> That is: your question, his answer and your oppose, and all the oppose
> !votes saying "Per SlimVirgin", are where I get my strange
> misconception that this was all about BADSITES. I wonder how I could
> have come to that conclusion. I must have been reading what you wrote
> on the RFA.

Agree.

Slim, I appreciate your elaborated strong oppose section, and I
appreciate that the opposes aren't knee-jerk.

Many, by eyeball probably most of the opposes do seem to come down to
"Gracenotes' position on this policy is something I can't support",
though there are legitimate questions in other areas and questions
about Gracenotes' support for other admins in general, regardless of
what policy here says or doesn't say.

It's not fair to Gracenote to make them the whipping boy for a failed
but popular proposed policy.  I stayed away from this until Cecropia
froze it; on review now, I have to agree that most of the opposes are
apparently advocating a policy which is similar to BADSITES.  Perhaps
not identical, but there is still much debate in the wider community
on how far we should (as a whole community) go on shunning the nuts
out there, and the positions advocated in oppose fall in the same
bucket that BADSITES generally did.

I still haven't made my mind up on the larger question; without trying
to turn it into a policy, I'd say that an unreformed Wikipedia Review
can stay linkbanned for all I care.

We're hitting more problems where not having a policy is causing
problems.  If we have a policy and there's disagreement, at least we
have something to point people to in terms of behavior expectations,
while there are open debates about directional changes in it.  Lacking
those expectations, people will get bit by the forms that the debates
take.  Voting against someone based on a specific unsettled point of
larger policy is fair if you think they're so biased that they can't
go along if the policy is eventually settled in a way they disagree
with, but less fair if it's just opposition to their position.

I am far more worried that one of Merkey's anon detractors claims that
they just got past RFA with another as-yet-unnamed account than
worrying what Gracenote might do if he got adminned and we decide on a
policy which is absolutely strict about attack sites.  I see no sign
that Gracenote would disrupt or refuse to go along with a settled
policy which he opposes.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com