-----Original Message----- From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner@gmail.com]
I am, at this point, unconvinced that the line between the issue and the people is so easily drawn here.
It is a pressing question, I think, how a complete nutter like Brandt can get taken so seriously by an utterly reputable news source. And I think the answer has a lot to do with the egregiously poor management of these accusations - management that was, in point of fact, led by SlimVirgin's refusal to answer any questions, no matter how well- intended.
So where does the line between issue and person get drawn here?
-Phil _______________________________________________
We permit anonymous editing. This includes administrators who do not publicly disclose their identity. We do not make an exception which requires effective administrators, administrators who perform their duties aggressively and well, to disclose their identity because people are aggrieved by them performing work for us well.
Fred
Fred
On 10/12/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We permit anonymous editing. This includes administrators who do not publicly disclose their identity. We do not make an exception which requires effective administrators, administrators who perform their duties aggressively and well, to disclose their identity because people are aggrieved by them performing work for us well.
Anonymity, bans, and rules against conflicts of interest don't get along together. You can't choose all three.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:39 AM, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We permit anonymous editing. This includes administrators who do not publicly disclose their identity. We do not make an exception which requires effective administrators, administrators who perform their duties aggressively and well, to disclose their identity because people are aggrieved by them performing work for us well.
"These accusations are false. Daniel Brandt is a known foe of Wikipedia who has *list highlights of Brandt's most egregiously insane actions*. I am disappointed that *publication* fell for his lies."
That's all that needed to be said. No disclosure, no rebuttal.
-Phil