--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
Steve Rapaport and a couple of others have argued
that
my reversion of the anti-censorship diatribe is
wrong,
on each of several specious grounds.
Most amusingly (but dangerously), that my reversion
amounts to "censorship". They seem to see some irony
here,
but this one in a series of errors or rhetorical
tricks.
Here is my response:
1. The article is not censored.
1a. The entire text of the article is at the top of
the
talk page.
1b. That text, and some variations of it, are freely
available on the "Older Versions" page.
1c. The article is NOT PROTECTED.
2. All Steve and company need do is recast the
diatribe
in the form of an article, a task I am willing to
help
with.
3. Whether they know it or not, I hate censorship.
3a. I would L-O-V-E to see more articles on
censorship in
the Wikipedia.
3b. I have no desire to hide the FACT that there has
been
a lot of censorship in America.
Apparently what Steve is pushing for is an unlimited
right
to put whatever he wants into an article. Well, he
doesn't
have that right, and calling my efforts to frustrate
his
assertion of this non-existent right is not
"censorship",
no matter how delicious the sensation of branding it
"ironic" may be.
Ed.
1. Whatever you try to pretend now, what you did
appeared to be censorship. It is especially obvious as
you were the only one strongly against the content of
the article, when all the other ones merely said it
could be under another title
2. When I tried to talk to you about it, you just
didnot answer. Moving an article to a talk page, and
just "leaving" while saying "this is not good guys,
please do work it until it is" is not exactly a
collaborative way to resolve issues
3. You abused your sysop powers, while yourself
engaged in an edit war on this article, you threatened
Steve of being banned if he tried to revert the
artile. This is not exactly a good way to promote
confidence and collaborative work, and this is exactly
what I would call sysop abuse.
4. You banned an anonymous ip just after one edit
*you* disagreed with. I think it is pushing the red
button a little bit quickly, without giving the person
the opportunity to talk about what he was doing. This
again is not exactly a collaborative attitude
5. I wonder what would happen to me if I were adopting
exactly the same attitude than you on this
article...want a parallele ? Say, I don't appreciate
one article on iraq war, so I entirely moved it to the
talk page, and say "Hey, work on this, this is not
acceptable as it is not representative of all views".
Then, each time someone try to revert the article, I
will threaten to ban him ?
How many minutes until I am banned for doing so do you
think ?
6. And yes, last point, though you seem to imply the
opposite here, Steve has not been insisting on
preserving the article just as it was. You just never
let the opportunity to do anything on that piece.
Yes, that is ironic.
And yes, that is extremely sad also.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com