Guy wrote:
Dan wrote:
>But it's a sign to me of one of the things wrong with Wikipedia's
>culture now that rather than deal with the substantive issues raised
>in the page, the first reaction of at least one prominent Wikipedian
>is to assume it's a past banned user and reach for the "banhammer".
And that's a sign to me that you never dealt with
Jon Awbrey. Oh,
but wait, you know him, don't you? He's a fellow WR poster.
Guy (JzG)
Guy, again, I hate to pick on you, but we can go over this however
many times it takes.
Dan posted to the list making a valid, good-faith observation.
You rudely dismiss his ideas, and instead cast aspertions about Dan's
affiliations.
This is not conducive to a good working community. Let's read a
sentence from NPA:
"some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Using someone's
affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views --
regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."
I'll ask you again nicely. In the future, if you have legitimate
input into the discussion, add it withing sinking to make attacks on
other members of the community. If you do not have anything useful to
contribute, let the thread go by without commenting. However,
comments such as this-- accusing Dan T of supporting Awbry-- this did
absolutely nothing but create rifts within the community. It's not
helpful, and it would be very nice if you could stop making such
comments.
Alec