[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Alec Conroy]

On 11/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> No, I am making judgments based on what is actually happening.  See
> the Alkivar arbitration for a real-world example of how the
> influence of this particular site is currently damaging Wikipedia.
>
> >The problem is, through your words and your actions,  you lead me to
> >believe that you regard anyone who has had absolutely any connection
> >with any site frequented by anyone you don't like as utterly
> >contemptible.  If you edited WR once, well you might as well be Jon
> >Awbrey himself!  (or Bagley, or Barber).
>
> No, I regard the current high-profile WR crowd, notably Bagley (user
> WordBomb), Barber (user JB196 / WR user Looch) and Awbrey (WR user
> Jonny Cache) as enemies of the project.  So do they.  They have no
> interest whatsoever in Wikipedia other than as a place to pursue
> their personal agenda.  They are resourceful, determined and their
> agenda is inimical to ours.  Once they are gone then WR might
> perhaps turn into a group of people worth listening to.
>
> Cleaning up after these abusers has cost me and numerous others a
> lot of time and effort.  A lot.


Guy-- those are fine sentiments, but how are they are reply to my post?
Go read my post:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084973.html

I don't care a hoot about  Bagley, Barber, Awbry, Adolph Hitler, or
Emmanuel Goldstein.  How  to treat banned users is NOT in contention.

What I've been discussing is your treatment of DanT, PM, GTBacchus,
and anyone else who you think is even remotely affiliateded with WR,
ED, or other BADSITES.  Unfortunately, we seem to be talking past each
other.

I said:  Your comments about DanT were wrong, you should apologize for them.
You replied:  Awbry is bad.  Really bad..  Really really bad.

Somewhere, the lines are scramble.   What we've got here is a failure
to communicate.

If you want to argue about what should be done banned users who create
sock puppets, you'd best go to WR for that debate-- I don't see any
source of disagreement here.


Alternative, if you'd liked to comment on the question of whether NPA
prohibits dismissing good-faith contributors merely for there
association with WR,  I happened to write a dandy email on that very
subject just this morning arguing that NPA protects even the likes of
DanT.  http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-November/084973.html
  :)

Alec