On 22/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 8:02 PM, Steve Summit
<scs(a)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. ;-)