Anyone want to explain how this tallies with the whole "delete & block on sight" policy for "anyone using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion"?

Goose, Gander.
Gander, Aaaack!

Ja Ja

Jon, you're slipping – I actually understood what you meant there.

And Jimbo listens to the community and takes action. Credit where credit's due.

Jimbo is his own worst enemy; high time wikipedia dumped all wierdly staring incompetents. Or at least had the courage to take Jimbo's authority to arbitrarily delete or block whatever or whomever he doesn't agree with away from him.

Then he can try to justify self-advertising on his user page without the power to block those who object to that abuse of user space.

Now, if Wikipedia had some kind of configuration control board, they could quickly conference and post a list of rules or a new policy on what editors can or can't have on their userpages. Issue resolved.

Instead, we get the usual round of circular arguing and self-serving sophistry, personal attacks, and otherwise unnecessary drama going on one of the admin forums and spilling over onto various talk pages, including Jimbo's. Until Wikipedia installs some kind of administrative oversight committee, its management will continue to be ridiculously disfunctional.

Like"No links to BADSITES like WR"?

Good point. That could happen. If the members of that group are elected hopefully the community wouldn't put people in office who would do something like that. Can't guarantee it though.