On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but answers to questions about that showing a lack of empathy and poor judgement have everything to do with the extra tools an admin can use.
The opposes "per SlimVirgin" were on her dissatisfaction with him not supporting banning all links to all "attack sites". Read the RFA. Question 4 and Oppose 2.
As you keep citing this, here is what I wrote:
<s>Oppose.</s> Strong oppose. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing to strong oppose, because some of GN's responses and his contribs have caused me more concern. The candidate has made only 343 edits to article talk, suggesting very low community interaction over content, against 5,700 edits to articles, many or most of which now appear to have been made by a bot, [3] which means they can be racked up in a matter of hours, and the bulk of the edits were made this month. [4] I'm also concerned that the bot is being used without bot approval, but Gracenotes says above that it's not a bot (which is either wrong, or it means that he sits mindlessly hitting a button hundreds of times for hours on end), and I'm not keen on the facetious response above when I asked GN why he'd redirected his user page to Gurch's. All this, combined with the attack sites thing, his posting to Wikipedia Review that that site shouldn't be added to the spam blacklist, and his apparent inability to give straightforward and clear answers to questions, is enough to cause me major concern. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)