ARBCOM Badsites, This is what they're saying about us ... Options Rating

[the fieryangel]

JzG is still upset about being called sexist (maybe you'll shut your mouth the next time, Guy?), but they also have quite a lot to about WR : Here's our entry!

So, whatcha think???

[the fieryangel]

The very best "proposed remedy" in an Arb-com case, ever.

No mention of the word 'Rutabaga' is to be permitted anywhere on Wikipedia under any circumstances

2) I've heard of somebody who had a freak farming accident as a child, and just barely escaped being crushed to death by an avalanche of rutabagas, and as a result is traumatized by any mention of the offending vegetable. Or maybe I just made it up, but you've got to Assume Good Faith about it. Anyway, this alleged person feels personally attacked and emotionally injured every time he or she encounters the word "rutabaga", so we should err on the side of protecting the feelings of our potential editors (since this alleged person might possibly decide to become a Wikipedia editor at some indeterminate time in the future) by proactively removing anything that might cause such emotional harm. Thus, the word "rutabaga" should be banned from Wikipedia. It's possible that the application of other policies might compel the word to be used to a limited degree, like on the Rutabaga article itself (though it might be desirable to recast it using some synonym, if a suitable other word can be found), but certainly its use can be flatly banned on unrelated article pages and in user, talk, and project space. It's the least we can do to promote human decency in a common sense way.

JzG shows his usual humor-impaired attitude :

If this proposal genuinely reflects how Dan feels about attack site links, I think we had better ban him. Seriously. This is an appalling dismissal of the very real distress - and real-world problems - that attack sites have brought to Wikipedia editors. This seeks to repudiate the entire MONGO arbitration, not just clarify the meaning and intent of not linking to attack sites. Are we expected to take anything Dan has said in this case seriously now? Is he genuinely unable to see the difference between harassment and this stupid invented illustration? I hope Dan is not serious in this, because if he is then there is pretty much no chance whatsoever that we will ever come to an agreement. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 17th September 2007, 9:14am