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???

[KamrynMatika]

A few more abitrators besides the ever-transparent Fred have weighed in on the proposed decision. Kirill Lokshin (one of my favourite arbs, come to think of it) seems to be fighting the good fight, whereas FloNight seems to be advocating a hardcore ban of every link that contains 'negative information' no matter what.

Particularly interesting:

8) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Wikipedia policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the 'right message' in FloNight's book is that if your Wikipedia abuse is discussed on external sites, you get a free pass?

Again:

11) Wikipedia is a project to develop a free-content encyclopedia. While the community is of profound importance, its desires cannot substantially override this goal.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As worded sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite scary really.

[BobbyBombastic]

Particularly interesting:

8) Good-faith discussion of a credible allegation that a particular user has violated Wikipedia policy does not constitute harassment, even if this allegation has also been made by outside groups typically engaged in harassment.

Support:

1. Kirill 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Oppose:

1. Sends the wrong message. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the 'right message' in FloNight's book is that if your Wikipedia abuse is discussed on external sites, you get a free pass?

(bolding mine)

Actually, that seems to be pretty much how it goes. That dictates my conduct here to the extent that I have refrained from supporting people on WP here or even raising certain issues because there is a group that is inclined to dismiss issues entirely once they are tainted by the "scoundrels of Wikipedia Review". It is a reaction lacking in any reasonable thought and to be quite honest it made me realize that this is just a symptom of a greater sickness.

edit: But even the "good editors" who realize this symptom and sickness share the blame for all this disruption, I suppose. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the vocal minority of people contributing to Wikipedia are being catered to. The "good editors" are hoping it runs its course and it does not interfere with their activities. I don't see that happening, but go ahead and keep hoping that if it makes you feel good.