On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:44:11 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan(a)tobias.name> 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.
No, Dan, that is not really fair. The sockpuppet that replaced the
link was identified almost immediately as such, having gone to some
lengths to ensure that would happen; the sock who removed it was
only identified as a sock a week later.
What is absolutely clear here - *absolutely* clear - is that we were
deliberately trolled by Wikipedia Review. And a major part of the
success of that trolling was: you, I'm afraid. Your consistent and
persistent assertion that any removal of any link was necessarily
BADSITES, the fact that even now you are raising BADSITES despite
numerous attempts by others to move on from that, this is what makes
a silly mistake into a drama. As Jayjg noted above, it's the
reinsertion as ZOMG! CENSORSHIP! NO BADSITES! that usually starts
the whole festival of stupid.
Jayjg characterises BADSITES as a very effective strawman. This is
spot in, I think. And you've been one of the people most obviously
taken in by that.
Not many of us are guilt free here, of course. But some of us are
engaged in trying to make actual progress and a workable guideline
(nothing, of course, can be proof against the well-intentioned but
clueless or the determined abuser). You, on the other hand, still
seem to be standing there shouting "And another thing!" after the
departing crowd.
This is, of course, a slight exaggeration for the sake of
picturesque language, but only a very slight exaggeration. Why not
just sit back for a week and see what emerges on the various talk
pages, now that we're finally nailing some of the more disruptive
single-purpose and sockpuppet accounts?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG