Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 21, 2007 11:54 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
BADSITES has proven to be an extremely convenient way of distracting attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its author ever dreamed it would.
Yes, I think you are right. We had an IP turn up out of the blue yesterday and mark some current proposals as "rejected" due to BADSITES, including one that was specifically motivated by the rejection of BADSITES and seeks to do what the last ArbCom suggested, namely write a workable policy.
Of course, it is incredibly important to WR that they retain the ability to add links. Not because they want to, but because it keeps the site in the public mind. Without the constant harping it would have been forgotten by now as just another festival of stupid.
As far as I can tell, removing WR links has generally created more drama than allowing them to stay.
That's a pretty circular argument. I could as easily (and, in fact more accurately) say that it is the loud restoration of such links that intentionally creates the drama. The Robert Black case is a perfect example. A sockpuppet deletes the link, then another sockpuppet *conveniently shows up almost immediately* to revert, crying "REVERT BLATANT CENSORSHIP!!!!!" A respected and established admin quietly removes the link, then even more sockpuppets show up to start edit-warring with admins over it. Finally, an actual established editor and leader in the anti-BADSITES movement notices the hubbub, and shows up to edit-war over the link. Then other editors say "OMG, look at all the drama, it must be caused by that BADSITES proposal again, I can't believe all those people were proponents of it, it's such a bad idea!" Mission accomplished.
Drama plays into the hands of the anti-BADSITES proponents, just as the whole strawman policy did in the first place. That's why they insist on drama.
I'm confused, after drama was ongoing how did a "A respected and established admin" quietly remove the link? That was just as much part of the edit-warring and drama as another comment.
Furthermore, this isn't the only example. I'd love to see for example an explanation of how the Making Lights fiasco was somehow a result of the "anti-BADSITES proponents". (Incidentally, as someone who was and remains strongly opposed to BADSITES I object to your characterization of such editors as part of an amorphous "they" who desire "drama").