William Pietri wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
The blogger abused her power to harass Wikipedia
editors. Should her
self-published website have been removed as a result, or should she have
been "rewarded" by adding more links to it?
Will, how can you possibly claim that adding links is a reward, but
removing links is not a punishment and would not be seen as one?
I'm not claiming that linking is a reward, which I tried to convey by
the quotation marks.
Honestly, between the apparent conflicts in your
assorted answers, your
unwillingness to answer David's question about what you learned from
last time, and your apparent inability to even understand the points on
the other side, I have to wonder about your motivation here.
Given that nobody else seems to think your a proposal is a good idea,
ave you considered the notion that perhaps you're still sore about the
previous incident and are determined to prove yourself right
retrospectively?
William
Is that what passes of assuming good faith around here? I was never
involved in any of the previous discussions about an off-site harassment
policy, and only became involved in this one when a poor summary of the
TNH was added by Alecmconroy to the ArbCom case. I made corrections to
the record and became engaged in the ArbCom case talk pages. From there
I became involved in the discussion over drafting a new policy and
deleting the old one, which I was concerned was dominated by a sock
puppet and an editor with little WP involvement. While they should have
a say too, I don't think we want to have our policies re-written by
folks with little discernable investment in the project. To move things
forward I made a fresh proposal that I though addressed some objections
to previous policies. However the loud response has been "that sounds
like the old proposal, and we've already rejected that so stop bothering
us." I've seen too few suggestions and too much potshots. It's easy to
say "that'll never work", and apparently hard to ask "how about
this?"
-W.