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.

They are arguably being more disruptive and damaging to the community than the damage from the attack site links itself is.

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

It's hard to take her seriously when you know her name isn't "Sarah". No, BLP does not apply to characters from a fairy tale who dress up poodles. And if she was trolled by DennyColt, and took an incorrect line because of this, as she now claims, then who is to say that she's also not trolled by Jayjg?

David, you don't know what you're talking about, and these personal attacks on the list have to stop.

So again, how is it that BADSITES can have failed as a policy, yet made it in through an Arbitration hearing against MONGO that banned Rootology, rather than the person who was doing the bad stuff, MONGO? And how come MONGO later got desysopped, but the ban against Rootology didn't get lifted? And how come the pseudo-BADSITES remained?

In one sentence, you get a very clear view of a great deal of what's wrong with the Cabal (especially its name-changing, overly-secretive, utterly-dishonest, putative leader).

She asks for "personal attacks" (i.e. "criticism of her") to stop, but at the same time "criticizes" (i.e. "personally attacks") David Gerard. She is incapable of being intellectually honest, or of accepting that which she is so eager to dole out.

And to think, I find myself defending David Gerard. What *has* this world come to?

When I started reading this forum, I never thought Slim Virgin was as bad as you all made her out to be.

It turns out you all were not making up this kind of stuff up! She's practically saying "You either are with us, or you are with the trolls and vandals!" and any attempt to convince her otherwise makes you a villain in her eyes.

And did she just basically tell David Gerard to put up or shut up? I thought they were allies, or Cabal-mates at any rate?

I thought they were allies, or Cabal-mates at any rate?