[WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES

[Ray Saintonge]

Brock Weller wrote:
> 'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how
> coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on
> anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it
> secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that.
> He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims
> from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for
> taking care of this with so little mess.
>   
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started.  Now I read comments 
from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on 
something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him 
an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.

I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a 
right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here 
personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such 
claims.

If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up?  Why 
make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them?  
What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting 
together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a 
handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others 
should be protected.  For many of us that is what was wrong with the old 
way of doing things.

Ec
> On 9/9/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>   
>> On 9/9/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions
>>> more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the
>>> same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins
>>> reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and
>>> a minority just see conspiracies and cabals.
>>>       
>> The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin
>> people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as
>> to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in
>> and of itself.  Why the double-standard?