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.

On 6/17/07, 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? > 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 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.

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.

On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer <eflebeth(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > 2007/6/18, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com>om>: > > > 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. > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his > own opinion about it? > > greetings, > elian > It's on my talk page, links galore.

The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.

Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,

Both revealed this information in RfAs,

If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.

On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer <eflebeth(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > 2007/6/18, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com>om>: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his > > > > own opinion about it? > > > > > > > > greetings, > > > > elian > > > > > > > It's on my talk page, links galore. > > > > But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page????? > > > > > The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that > > > gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not > > > have access to. > > > > Evidence? > > > > > Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs, > > > > Where has Slim done so? > > > > > Both revealed this information in RfAs, > > > > Where has Slim done so? > > > > > If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically > > > charged times only. Enforce it all of the time. > > > > I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I > > come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time > > is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when > > people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the > > hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make > > all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain > > what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP > > Botany. > > > I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just > for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American > Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like > Rock climbing for deletion. What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page? > > There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this > issue. You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?