On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That is: Gracenotes referred to BADSITES, and SlimVirgin opposed because he failed to oppose all links in any circumstances.
I opposed to begin with because Gracenotes posted to Wikipedia Review in opposition to these sites being placed on the spam blacklist, and then wrote in response to Q4: "I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia." That wasn't what I meant, it wasn't what the ArbCom said, and all these sites claim they intend to improve Wikipedia, so by that definition, there are no attack sites. I then also opposed because of the bot approval issue, the unclear answers, the inflated edit count from the automated script, and the low talk page participation.
Complete text of your oppose: "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)"
That looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES, and BADSITES was referenced by that name in Gracenotes' answer which you referred to in your oppose.
That is: your question, his answer and your oppose, and all the oppose !votes saying "Per SlimVirgin", are where I get my strange misconception that this was all about BADSITES. I wonder how I could have come to that conclusion. I must have been reading what you wrote on the RFA.
- d.