On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe
<the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/07, 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?
Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal
(tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more
like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has
followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide
a quite precise set of names.
So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW
from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
CW is a loose cannon, you can't count on her to always take your side
in the issue, because even if you get along with her, she'll tell you
if she thinks you're acting rotten. She might be an issue when groups
of admins gang up on editors who are accusing admins of abusing their
powers.
Well, at least that's a reason, but huh? Why would I expect this any
more from CW than from any other of the 10 new admins created each
week? In fact, I would expect it less from CW than from most of the
others, since CW appears to do little other than vandal reverting, and
avoids almost all controversy, or even stating any opinions.
I appreciate your at least attempting to provide a rationale, but
seriously, can't you see how farfetched this whole thing is?