[WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

[Anthony]

On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:05 AM, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Phil Sandifer wrote
> >
> >> Conflicts of interest seem the more sensible ones to rule out. Our
> >> rules against POV pushing already go against the worst problems of
> >> conflicts of interest, making the CoI rule something that mostly
> >> forbids good editing.
> >
> > It's a guideline. I have constantly emphasised how good a piece of
> > advice it is not to get into COI editing. People without WP
> > experience really have no idea what a daily rund of edit war will
> > do to them. We are not going to withdraw that advice. Let alone say
> > paid PR people on the site are OK.
>
> It's great advice. And paid PR people are not OK. But, frankly,
> they're not OK in the same way sockpuppets aren't OK. It's not that
> you're not allowed to do it, it's just that you're not allowed to do
> it so badly that we notice and go "Oh for fuck's sake."
>
Right, COI editing, POV pushing, sockpuppetry, it's all fine as long
as it doesn't annoy certain people.

That's precisely the problem being pointed out by so many of the so
called attack sites.