On 5/28/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not
> here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let
> some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and
> other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I
> suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are
> made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia."
> That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites
> claim to have the intent of improving WP.
>
On 5/28/07, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry... that's not what I said. I was only
talking about external sites
wherein one
can locate, either by browsing or by searching, personal attacks made
against Wikipedians without the intent of improving Wikipedia (and
intentions
have to be discerned, not hand-fed), by any patron of that site. What the
sites
claim is a red herring that has little bearing on my response.
To assume that I support linking to "attack sites" from an illogical
loophole in my
wording seems odd to me. In a sense, DennyColt changed the issue from
"attack
links" to "attack sites". I wish we could change it back again.
There are some sites where practically every link will quickly lead to
a serious personal attack. The idea is not to increase the readership
of the site. And no one has given a single example of where one of
these dedicated attack sites would ever *need* to be linked to, rather
than the contents described, or the link e-mailed to someone.