[WikiEN-l] Well, I guess WIKITRUTH *is* an 'attack site' after all...

[George Herbert]

On 6/8/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > On 8 Jun 2007 at 09:05:41 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > How odd. A userid was created yesterday which nominated the Wikitruth
> > > article for deletion, based on BADSITES, and a bunch of
> > > none-too-convincing arguments. It's about the most obvious example of
> > > a straw man nomination I've seen in a while; I hope I am not accused
> > > of trying to revise history by saying that.
> >
> > But, it's funny that the same "none-too-convincing arguments" and
> > contentious behavior, when MONGO did it, was perfectly all right.
> > When I complained about his behavior on AN/I, I was the one who got
> > slapped for it, and threatened with blocking for "stalking" MONGO (by
> > reverting his edits that I considered vandalism).  Once again, he got
> > off totally scot free, without so much as a slap on the wrist.  Once
> > again, it's shown that there's an "untouchable" caste here, a clique
> > that has a free pass to do what it wishes, censor what it wishes, be
> > uncivil to whomever it wishes, and the admins will always side with
> > them and against whomever tries to hold them to account for their
> > behavior.  Some animals are more equal than others.
>
> How can I put this, Dan; your constant railing about an "untouchable"
> cabal sounds, um, kinda crazy. Perhaps even more seriously, it's
> boring. People don't read rants.

And it's hard to get much more "touchable" than "Your sysadmin bit was
turned off by Arbcom".


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com