"

...and it has been highly amusingI love all the out-of-context stuff (and the exclusion of the disussion re ""bite b00bies""...)
 

JSmith/Dmcdevit user conduct RFC draft

This is the illuminating link, beginning with ""Corrigan"" onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.smith/YouTube_Linklist#Corrigan_article_link. The false accusation of NOR, given uncivilly, should be addressed. It was followed by the report I made at NOR (in which he 1) didn't even try to argue that there was a NOR issue after making the accusation 2) did not apologize to the accused user for the false accusation. Along with discussions at EL, it clearly demonstrates that JSmith was aware there 1) was public opposition both to the project and how it was being conducted, and 2) there was public opposition to how complaints regarding valid links were handled/how other editors were mistreated/community editing was disrespected. In spite of this public opposition, the project, how it was conducted, and how editors with objections/community editing were treated continued unchanged.

Let's summarize:

1. there was opposition to project itself/how it was conductedthe project began without consensus, against established policy.
2. there was oppostion to how users with objections regarding valid links were treated/the disruptive effect this had on community editing at numerous articles. (When politely informed *by a copyright holder* that there was no copyright issue at numerous articles, JSmith, Mimsy, Dcmcdevit continued to delete the links about which they were aware there was NO copyvio, not merely links with suspected copyviothat is a separate issue from the fact that the project was established and conducted without community consensus. (Although both are user conduct issues there is no policy dispute. Copyright policy is clear, and they made no attempt to change it/discuss changing it. They cited the EL guideline as standard justification, without consensus, and directly against consensus after it was made clear at EL that no one agreed with a blanket You Tube ban, that links should be evaluated by article editors on a case-by-case basis, via editorial judgement and consensus. The extremely troubling incidents are not the ones in which they deleted suspected copyvios (although there is opposition to that/they do not have consensus and are acting procedurally against both C and EL)the extremely troubling incidents are the ones in which they continued to delete links they KNEW were NOT copyvios,  and how they treated other editors/the community in the process (bullying, false accusations, etcDcmdevit's comments to Argyiou, JSmith's ""NOR"") and disrupted Wikipedia in violation of WP:POINT.
 "