On 6/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Jun 2007 at 09:05:41 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How odd. A userid was created yesterday which nominated the Wikitruth article for deletion, based on BADSITES, and a bunch of none-too-convincing arguments. It's about the most obvious example of a straw man nomination I've seen in a while; I hope I am not accused of trying to revise history by saying that.
But, it's funny that the same "none-too-convincing arguments" and contentious behavior, when MONGO did it, was perfectly all right. When I complained about his behavior on AN/I, I was the one who got slapped for it, and threatened with blocking for "stalking" MONGO (by reverting his edits that I considered vandalism). Once again, he got off totally scot free, without so much as a slap on the wrist. Once again, it's shown that there's an "untouchable" caste here, a clique that has a free pass to do what it wishes, censor what it wishes, be uncivil to whomever it wishes, and the admins will always side with them and against whomever tries to hold them to account for their behavior. Some animals are more equal than others.
How can I put this, Dan; your constant railing about an "untouchable" cabal sounds, um, kinda crazy. Perhaps even more seriously, it's boring. People don't read rants.
And it's hard to get much more "touchable" than "Your sysadmin bit was turned off by Arbcom".