[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 52, Issue 136

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:31:16 -0500, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu wrote:

> I stand corrected. In any event the point- removal of an edit by a banned user
> is distinct from the original claim and in any event is not "quiet".

Not to mention that, in this case, the original link removal was done by another banned user, 
so anybody truly following a policy of "revert all links by banned users" would need to go back 
to the version before any of the trolling sockpuppets got to it... which happens to be the 
version that includes the link.  Selectively reverting one of the banned users may suit an 
ideology that says that the link is bad, but don't pretend it's a simple enforcement of the policy 
on banned users.

> See David's reponse to this. The fact hat Will seemed to maintain well 
> after the
> fact that this was still a problem and the fact that Tony, Mongo and Thuranx
> continued to push for some form of BADSITES means that it wasn't nearly 
> as much
> a strawman or as dead as it should have been.

Not to mention that, as recently as the ArbCom case on attack sites, an admin (ElinorD) 
attempted to suppress commentary that included a link to Making Light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Wo
rkshop&diff=next&oldid=160118695

It's clear that abuse of the pseudo-policy on "attack sites" did not end with the failure of 
BADSITES or the apology of BeBack on the Making Light issue.

Dan
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/