On 5/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)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)