On Nov 22, 2007 11:32 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted, but which some people keep promoting under various guises -- is the notion that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about (and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES, despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether under that name or some other. The defenders of the policies-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES keep claiming that their policies are not BADSITES, and that BADSITES is dead, and that stubborn insistence on debating BADSITES is distracting from the real work at hand.
Who on earth are you talking about here? I hope not me; I was never involved in the original BADSITES strawman (never once made an edit to the page or Talk: page), nor have I been involved in any of its subsequent alleged re-incarnations, variations, alternatives, etc. Is there someone in particular you are referring to?
Go back a step, pretend Steve's email doesn't contain words matching /B?DS?T?S/ and see what you think of the notions presented therein and please respond with your views on their workability.
But it had the evil word in it, and it's still in the thread topic. It's a well-known medical fact that any use of or exposure to that word, or even reference to the original strawman, immediately shut downs all rational thought on any wikien-l thread or Wikipedia Talk: page discussion. ;-)