[WikiEN-l] BADSITES vs RFA

[David Gerard]

On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at 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.