On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@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