Even if there has in effect been a bias in the vote, (not that these things are votes anyhow), there was precious little support and precious little argument in favour.Michaeldsuarez wrote:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=70496297&oldid=70495741EricBarbour wrote:Just FYI, this site is still prominently on the blacklist, along with porn sites and well-known spammers......
When you don't like the results of an election, claim that the election was rigged. People such as Rillke will claim that the discussion was "contaminated".
We've made our concessions (eg. the "Email Support Staff" link, a larger, more visible "!" report button for logged-in users). We accommodated them. What will Commons do in return? Will they continue to demand unconditional surrender?
I don't think we should be overly worried about a further demonstration of WikiIncompetence - it'll just mean that instead of linking, when issues are raised people will start surfing the site and every now and again, one of those people will get drawn in. I think it is also a minor news story in itself, that Wikipedia so lacks self-confidence as an organisation that they are terrified of losing control of any discussion.
I was trying to think of a real world example. A while back BMW pre-launched its then new K1200S motorcycle and Kevin Ash of the Telegraph did a review that basically pointed out that the handling was a disaster - and also observed that other parts of the media were giving rave reviews. (It is not unusual for the pre-launch reviewers to take a manufacturer's word that a fault in a pre-production model will be resolved and miss this information out). BMW withdrew the launch for quite a few months while they sorted it out, but also banned Kevin from reviewing their bikes, press days and so on for a year or two. That treatment sticks in someone's mind and Kevin's reviews will still mention the infamous K1200S from 2004.