On 6/17/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is
> > that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from
> > editing, and not about the editing per se.
>
> Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and
> exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which
> conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
>
I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a
well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being
funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to
get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call
someone on their bad conduct.
This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia. What particular
people? Me. Why would they want to prevent me from editing? Well,
it was an attempt to shut me up to give a friend a favor they didn't
deserve. No one bothered to look at anything, to weigh anything I
said, they simply ganged up on me, shut me up at every turn, so that
no one would look into what was going on. In this instance it
backfired because it was ridiculous. It doesn't usually backfire like
this, proof is that it continues, and people who do it feel they can,
with impunity, ridicule their targets and continue to do it.
This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone
who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle,"
"giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain
effective.
Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.
There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of
this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time. 48
hours for "tenditious editing." The blocking admin didn't even have
to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some
lame essay to the reasoning. And the usual, "giggle," "wink,"
"giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you
could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that
others act up to standards that you don't adhere to. The whole
process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which
it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and
beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that
those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of
those without admin powers.
"giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people. Somewhere
the project seems to have got off track.
KP