On 6/18/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe
<the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You know Jayjg, when you use phrases like
"whining conspiracy-mongers
blathering on wikien-l", you present me with a choice between thinking
that you don't understand how abusive your language is-- or that you
do understand.
Mangoe/Papaya, I'm tired of being abused; tired of you and your WR
crew spinning ever more fanciful conspiracy theories with me at the
center, or near-center, of some vast web of nefarious deeds, all
designed to forward some hideous outcome. It's bad enough that it goes
on on WR, but I shouldn't have to put up with it on the wikien-l list.
Go admonish your WR buddies for their unrelenting and horrific abuse,
and stop acting the pious hypocrite on this list.
Jay, it sounds like you believe they should put down the stick first, as
you are the true aggrieved party here. Has it occurred to you that they
might believe the same thing?
Note that I'm not saying any particular person is right here, any more
than I've looked into who started the Hatfield-McCoy thing. I'm just
saying that without at least one side deciding to take the high road,
these things can go on forever.
William
I'm not sure that Jay's in the wrong here, with his actions, in spite
of his and Slim giving off an attitude that their position is
completely indefensible. I'm more interested in the issues about
using check user to gain information about users, then revealing the
information at specific times, but not at other times.
If open proxies are bad, editors should be stopped when it is first
discovered they are using them--registered editors. And, they should
not be selectively revealed in political circumstances.
Also, if this is being revealed under these circumstance, when
Charlotte was never investigated for sock puppetry as a check user,
what other information about other users is subject to being revealed
when it is obtained by those with check user powers?
KP