[WikiEN-l] To have or to have not power -- "giggle," "giggle"

[jayjg]

On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/17/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The other thing about the harping on banning and identification is
> > > that it's rather too obvously about preventing particular people from
> > > editing, and not about the editing per se.
> >
> > Whoops, there's that conspiracy again. *Which* particular people, and
> > exactly *why* would someone want to prevent them from editing? Which
> > conspiracy theory are we going with at this point?
> >
> I was attacked to get me to shut up.  Certainly it was a
> well-orchestrated, well,  maybe not that well since it wound up being
> funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to
> get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call
> someone on their bad conduct.

I'm sorry to have to ask, but who are you, which "well-orchestrated
gang" tried to get you to "shut up", and how does this relate to the
CharlotteWebb RFA?

>
> This pat comment to attempt to change the topic and ridicule anyone
> who has been the target of group bullying on Wikipedia, "giggle,"
> "giggle," "oh conspiracies" has been done too many times to remain
> effective.

Who is trying to get CW to "shut up", and how is he/she being "bullied"?

>
> Editors and admins do gang up on other editors who disagree with them.

Who is disagreeing with CW, and on what topic?

>  There is no question that the person who brought up the discussion of
> this event on Wikipedia would be blocked for some length of time.  48
> hours for "tenditious editing."  The blocking admin didn't even have
> to pretend to have a real reason for blocking, simply applied some
> lame essay to the reasoning.  And the usual, "giggle," "wink,"
> "giggle," "oh, the conspiracy theories," "the cabal is back."
>
> If you're an admin and you can't treat people with respect, maybe you
> could at least pretend you do, or stop sanctimoniously demanding that
> others act up to standards that you don't adhere to.  The whole
> process on Wikipedia is simply creating a stratified society in which
> it is clear that those with admin powers consider themselves above and
> beyond reproach from those without admin powers, so much so, that
> those with admin powers have no shame about ridiculing the concerns of
> those without admin powers.
>
> "giggle," "giggle," "oh a conspiracy"
>
> We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enthrone people.  Somewhere
> the project seems to have got off track.

I hate to have to be blunt here, but I have no idea what you are
ranting about, or how it relates to the CW RFA.