On 5/28/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The problem is that not everyone is engaged in
writing an
encyclopedia. An increasingly large number of people hang around
Wikipedia project space to stir up conflict, and they tend to be the
ones who want to link to these sites. And before you jump down my
throat, I'm not saying that everyone who supports the pro-linking
position is just a troublemaker, but a fair number of them are.
The supporters of BADSITES talk sweet reason, but every time they
*act* upon the idea they act like rabid killbots on crack. Surely you
can see this introduces scepticism, and is also why many of us have
profound scepticism of the idea.
The attempt to abuse an RFA to try to backdoor in an utterly failed
bad policy proposal is disgraceful.
That isn't even remotely what's happening, David. First, I haven't
seen anyone who supports the removal of these links going around
removing them in any systematic way, never mind like "rabid killbots
on crack." If you're talking about Will, there are particular reasons
for what he did that I've explained to you, and he hasn't been one of
the vocal supporters (that I'm aware of) of removing links to these
sites, and didn't vote in the RfA. You're mixing up apples and
oranges.
As for the RfA, I opposed because I'm unhappy with the candidate's
replies to questions on a *number* of issues, and I get the impression
(rightly or wrongly) of someone who acts before thinking. *That* is
the basis of my opposition, and it's a perfectly legitimate reason to
oppose someone.
Please don't keep raising the issue of BADSITES. It was started by a
strawman sock for the purpose of stirring it. Please don't do his job
for him.