>Well, no, that's not what I did. But I was tetchy. I have had more
>than enough of WR sympathisers. That site is a nest of vipers right
>now, and they are proving highly successful in twisting our people
>to do their bidding, as we saw in the recent Alkivar arbitration.
>
>I am of the view that being a good Wikipedia is, at this time,
>fundamentally incompatible with playing any active part on Wikipedia
Well, if the self-admission of tetchiness implies a regret, that's
fine-- we can leave it at that.
If not, well, these sorts of problems are going to recur indefinitely.
I understand your frustration when you say "I've had more than enough
of WR sympathizers". I, as I've said, have had more than enough of
conversations of the form:
A: "I have a valid point, question, or concern."
B: "That's nice. But I heard you once edited this site I have a
running feud with, so I'm just going to insult you and ignore your
comments."
We've seen too many of these conversations, and we, as a community,
are going to have to find the maturity to move beyond them.
--
Anyway-- if your general estimation of WR contributors is low, that's
fine. But like any stereotype, you have a problem if you choose the
stereotyp over when you can't accept evidence to the contrary (i.e.
DanT has obeyed our policies, but he's definitely a viper also, and
doesn't deserve civility).
Point being-- in your response to Dan T, you didn't address his
points, you just harped on his affiliations, and (presumably falsely)
claimed he was affiliated with Awbry. Ya shouldn't have, and more
importantly, you shouldn't in the future, end of story.
Anyway, I don't mean to run on. I know you know all this-- I think
you were quoting NPA months before I ever heard the word Wikipedia.
Normally I wouldn't say anything, but your comment was yet another
example of a behavior problem we've been struggling with, and one you
personally have been struggling with. so I thought I would chime in
just to give us all one more opportunity to learn --- I'll go now. :)
Alec