My Assistant
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Jonny Cache |
Sat 14th July 2007, 11:40pm
Post
#1
|
|
τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 5,100 Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am Member No.: 398 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Look at me ! — I'm top-posting ! I'm top-posting !
I record this here as an exercise for the reader. Use it to test your readiness and your skills for the eternal-infernal battle between reason and rhetoric. Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:44 -0500) Subj: Re: FredBauder "Clarifies" on Attackkkkk Site Link Policy Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:44:10 -0500 From: Slim Virgin <slimvirgin-...@public.gmane.org> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-...@public.gmane.org> Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english On 7/14/07, David Gerard <dgerard-...@public.gmane.org> wrote: That's easy to say now, but the problem is not advocacy for WR links — the problem is that no-one is in fact reining in those admins going stupidly overboard in advocating full site bans. The problematic behaviour keeps happening over and over again, and when called on it we see (as we have on this list) that they become abusive to anyone questioning their behaviour, let alone expecting them to acknowledge that it could conceivably be problematic in any way whatsoever. David, you don't know what you're talking about, and these personal attacks on the list have to stop. I opposed Gracenotes' RfA because I didn't trust his judgment, and there were a number of reasons for that, which I explained here. Wikipedia Talk : Requests For Adminship : Gracenotes Please read that carefully before you comment again. I support people I trust, and I oppose people I don't trust, and my reasoning never rests on one issue. People are entitled to act on their instincts without being attacked for it. Note that Gracenotes *during his RfA* restored a post from a WR anon saying I had never asked them to remove the attacks against me. It was nonsense and it was removed by two admins, but Gracenotes restored it. That is the kind of thing people opposed him over. Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it. I also don't go around removing links, and in fact can't recall when I last did it. I don't support the incident where a link to a blog was removed, but the person who did that admitted he over-reacted, and his apology should be accepted, which means we should stop harping on about it. There's another side to your view of evil admins stomping around removing links added by innocent sweeties who're only trying to be helpful. During one of the discussions about this issue, one of the people on this mailing list who argues in favor of linking found some attacks on me from WR, including an attempt to out me, that had been posted to another website. Delighted, he started asking whether X was now an attack site, and of course he said he didn't dare link to it (heaven forfend!) but another editor was kind enough to tell people that the attacks were on website X, page Y, section Z — only in the interests of informing the discussion, mind you. It probably broke his heart to do it. I can't remove that discussion, because if I do, I open myself up to more personal attacks on this list, and I open the list up to another 50 e-mails from Dan Tobias. I don't want to ask anyone else to remove it, because then I expose them to the vitriol. So I have to pretend I haven't seen it, and just leave it for any passing person to read, knowing it was posted by someone who postures as a fellow editor. BLP doesn't apply to me, it seems. Please try to imagine how hurtful that is. This is what Fred Bauder has been arguing. We need to create an environment where regular editors feel supported when they're attacked from outside, not one in which they get attacked even more for trying to defend themselves. That means not kicking up a giant fuss when links are removed, even if you don't wholeheartedly agree with the removal. It means not mocking someone over and over in public because he reacted badly to being outed and asked for a link to an otherwise decent blog to be removed. It means not taking up the cause of the attackers just because you think a policy proposal went too far. If you think a bunch of admins are overegging it, e-mail them; don't take them to task on a mailing list. Remember that they're trying to be decent (no matter how misguided you think they are), as opposed to trying to hurt people, which is what the linkers are doing. That distinction is actually the only thing that matters in the end. Sarah This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 14th July 2007, 11:46pm |
Jonny Cache Poor Baby !!! Sat 14th July 2007, 11:40pm
badlydrawnjeff When they start regulating the people who do the a... Sat 14th July 2007, 11:50pm
Daniel Brandt It's hard to take her seriously when you know ... Sat 14th July 2007, 11:57pm
Jonny Cache
It's hard to take her seriously when you know... Sun 15th July 2007, 12:03am
Robster
David, you don't know what you're talking... Sun 15th July 2007, 12:54am
Jonny Cache
[quote name='The artist currently calling herself... Sun 15th July 2007, 7:58pm
blissyu2 It sounds like such a good speech. Really, its qu... Sun 15th July 2007, 2:11am
Daniel Brandt
So again, how is it that BADSITES can have failed... Sun 15th July 2007, 5:53pm
blissyu2 Perhaps it was one of SlimVirgin's alter egos. Sun 15th July 2007, 6:36pm
The Joy When I started reading this forum, I never thought... Mon 16th July 2007, 2:57am
Jonny Cache
When I started reading this forum, I never though... Mon 16th July 2007, 3:32am
guy
I thought they were allies, or Cabal-mates at any... Mon 16th July 2007, 12:40pm![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th 12 14, 10:11pm |