--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Steve Rapaport and a couple of others have argued that my reversion of the anti-censorship diatribe is wrong, on each of several specious grounds.
Most amusingly (but dangerously), that my reversion amounts to "censorship". They seem to see some irony here, but this one in a series of errors or rhetorical tricks.
Here is my response:
- The article is not censored.
1a. The entire text of the article is at the top of the talk page.
1b. That text, and some variations of it, are freely
available on the "Older Versions" page.1c. The article is NOT PROTECTED.
- All Steve and company need do is recast the
diatribe in the form of an article, a task I am willing to help with.
- Whether they know it or not, I hate censorship.
3a. I would L-O-V-E to see more articles on censorship in the Wikipedia.
3b. I have no desire to hide the FACT that there has been a lot of censorship in America.
Apparently what Steve is pushing for is an unlimited right to put whatever he wants into an article. Well, he doesn't have that right, and calling my efforts to frustrate his assertion of this non-existent right is not "censorship", no matter how delicious the sensation of branding it
"ironic" may be.
Ed.
1. Whatever you try to pretend now, what you did appeared to be censorship. It is especially obvious as you were the only one strongly against the content of the article, when all the other ones merely said it could be under another title
2. When I tried to talk to you about it, you just didnot answer. Moving an article to a talk page, and just "leaving" while saying "this is not good guys, please do work it until it is" is not exactly a collaborative way to resolve issues
3. You abused your sysop powers, while yourself engaged in an edit war on this article, you threatened Steve of being banned if he tried to revert the artile. This is not exactly a good way to promote confidence and collaborative work, and this is exactly what I would call sysop abuse.
4. You banned an anonymous ip just after one edit *you* disagreed with. I think it is pushing the red button a little bit quickly, without giving the person the opportunity to talk about what he was doing. This again is not exactly a collaborative attitude
5. I wonder what would happen to me if I were adopting exactly the same attitude than you on this article...want a parallele ? Say, I don't appreciate one article on iraq war, so I entirely moved it to the talk page, and say "Hey, work on this, this is not acceptable as it is not representative of all views". Then, each time someone try to revert the article, I will threaten to ban him ?
How many minutes until I am banned for doing so do you think ?
6. And yes, last point, though you seem to imply the opposite here, Steve has not been insisting on preserving the article just as it was. You just never let the opportunity to do anything on that piece.
Yes, that is ironic.
And yes, that is extremely sad also.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com