On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:53:37 -0500, "The Mangoe"
<the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One of the things you seem to miss, Guy, is that I (and
I'm pretty
sure that Dan holds the same opinion) don't really care about the
running vendetta between Wikipedia Review and and The Cabal. At least,
not as to the issues behind it. The thing that's annoying us is that
The Vendetta keeps causing collateral damage in other parts of
Wikipedia that don't have anything to do with the topics that started
the whole rucus.
I have to correct a fundamental misconception here. The cabal
(TINC) has no vendetta. The admin community has a job to do, and
that job includes protecting editors from being harassed and
threatened, protecting Wikipedia form being vandalised and
protecting the content from being biased by people aggressively
pushing an agenda.
The "vendetta" you describe is nothing more than a small group of
individuals frustrated in their attempts to do one of those things
that admins must stop them from doing.
Nobody held a gun to JB196's head and forced him to create over 500
sockpuppets, vandalise hundreds of articles, subvert an admin and
pursue a vendetta against Wikipedia in general. That was his
choice. Our choice was that we were not interested in being the
venue for his self-promotion. It wasn't a very difficult choice to
make, this was not a controversial ban. Neither was the ban of Judd
Bagley. Bagley threatened to harass the admin who stopped him
pushing his employer's agenda, and made good on that threat. If you
look at ASM you'll see that he has threatened and harassed many
people. This is not specific to Wikipedia, it is simply a function
of how important it is to the abusers to get their agenda published
on Wikipedia.
You've also missed another crucial point, which is that having taken
opposite positions for most of the debate, David Gerard and I are
actively collaborating on writing a Clue-based guideline to avoid
the trivial mistakes which triggered the acute over-reaction which
triggered the massive festivals of Stupid in which we all (and here
I am certainly not excluding myself) took part. Hopefully we can
also write it to avoid the hysterical over-reactions as well.
And I know full well that some participants in that debate will
ascribe the hysteria only to their opponents. They are the ones who
are *most* wrong and probably most to blame.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG