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.
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>
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.