On 10 Nov 2007 at 11:47:57 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You can leave it as whatever you like, I have no regrets about being mightily pissed off with Jon Awbrey's disruption (or Barber's or Bagley's) and having absolutely no patience whatsoever with anybody expressing support for banned abusers. Time for people to decide where their loyalties lie. Mine lie with Wikipedia, not with banned abusers of Wikipedia.
Ah, the classic "us vs. them", "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists" ploy. It plays well to a group of insecure patriots to rally them into suppressing dissent, but is not particularly appropriate for a community that's supposed to be open to participation from a diverse global community, and is supposed to be fighting against its various systemic biases rather than encouraging them.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:30:45 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Ah, the classic "us vs. them", "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists" ploy.
I am comfortable with the idea of informed critique with the intent of improving Wikipedia. I took part in the failed experiment that was WikiAbuse. WR is not currently doing critique wit the intent of improving Wikipedia, what WR is doing, as we saw in the Alkivar arbitration, is manipulating us in order to undermine us to give an advantage to several individuals who we banned as being completely incapable of following our core policies.
Did you read through the Alkivar arbitration?
This is not a generic "with us or with them", it is specific to *that* site at *this* time.
I know you feel that WR has the potential to produce legitimate critique, but right now all I see is Judd Bagley, Jon Awbrey and Jonathan Barber working together to screw us over in an attempt to get their way in content disputes largely motivated by personal vanity or financial gain.
Perhaps you can persuade your mate Bryant to kick those losers, and go back to the ideal of properly informed critique, rather than simply being a gathering ground for grudge bearers, vanity spammers and POV-pushers.
You seem to feel that even if someone has repeatedly proven that their every word is an attempt to enable them to violate policy, we should nonetheless take them at face value. Is this your position?
Guy (JzG)