[WikiEN-l] BADSITES vs RFA

[Gabe Johnson]

On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Heh. [[WP:DUCK]]. Exactly what I was getting at.

> 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.
>


-- 
Absolute Power
C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y