[WikiEN-l] Time to reboot wikien-l

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>:

> On Nov 21, 2007 2:01 PM,  <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
>> Quoting jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 2007 11:04 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg <jayjg99 at 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > Guy (JzG)
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment
>> >> essentially eliminates the ability to link to Wikipedia Review, which
>> >> fails at least four of the five "Should I link to it?" criteria in
>> >> "LINKLOVE".   If people stopped pushing BADSITES
>> >
>> > Who is "pushing BADSITES"? Please name them, and show where they are
>> > doing so. I've only seen people using it as a strawman, but I might
>> > have missed a supporter somewhere.
>>
>> We've been over this. Tony, Mongo and Thuranx were all pushing for it.
>
> Yes, three whole editors. I don't believe any of them are admins.

Yes, three editors two of whom are prominent and are former admins with many
political ties (and let's not pretend that doesn't matter), and again 
they were
only the most prominent. You can't claim that just because none of them are
admins that somehow makes it a strawman. (Incidentally, this seems to be
something I'm seeing more and more often on Wikipedia and it is disturbing.
People don't take policy proposals seriously from non-admins. This goes 
against
the entire philosophy of what admins are supposed to be, janitors not 
senators).

>> After
>> BADSITES failed Mongo and Thuranx then tried to get nearly identical 
>> language
>> in NPA.
>
> So it was down to two non-admins then. Did they think the language was
> "nearly identical", or did they think it was along the lines of
> LINKLOVE?

You can read the talk pages. From the description their it seemed to me that
they thought it was identical to BADSITES. It entailed the banning of websites
that contain anything that could be construed as harassment (After 3 weeks of
arguing Mongo recently proposed something more toned down closer to LINKLOVE
but still stricter than LINKLOVE and still open to the possibility of altering
article space)