Possibly, who knows. But I call it an attack site bc whatever nice language they use, it was expressly created to complain about admins. On 6/27/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/28/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote: Am I the only one who finds this thinking very troubling? Johnleemk

On 6/27/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote: Complaining about admins is an attack on Wikipedia? The site is boring. It looks just like the other one. I've now spent a total of less than five minutes on this one and the other one--one more minute and I WILL die from boredom. Why discuss second-rate, derivate, useless, just up, boring sites on this list-serve? I can't see one interesting or compelling thing at this site that could make me stay longer than one minute or could possible justify my having gone their in the first place. It's like that guy and his articles--it's now all about this list discussing him, there is nothing else to it. And don't tell me to read the history, it's boring. That's the biggest point about COI imo, offenders bore the readers to death causing an overall drop in readership and usefulness of Wikipedia. These "wikipedia attack" sites and attackers are solely designed to get the attention of Wikipedia admins who scream that anyone who complains about an admin is a troll (as if they're not human and no one would ever complain about them legitimately). It's as if these people (those calling those who criticize admins) are trolling for people to attack. Look, here's another attack site, say something about it so I can call you a troll. It's boring--insufferably boring, over the top boring, relentlessly boring. I hope this was boring. KP