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

[K P]

On 6/17/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> It has to do with the discussion about cliques of people ganging up on
> other cliques of people on Wikipedia.  It has to do with the various
> comments on the list whereby people's arguments are dismissed by
> claims of their crying conspiracy.
>
> You and Slim Virgin have been attacking people for discussing the
> issue of CW's RFA without answering any questions, attacking people's
> ability to think (although if you seriously question someone's ability
> to think and you discuss an issue with them...), people's evoking
> conspiracy theories in response to the discussion.
>
> If you don't know me, just assume I'm not talking to you.
>
> And if you think I'm ranting, why not treat it like a rant and ignore
> it?  After all, the burden wouldn't logically be on the ranter to
> ignore it.
>
> KP
>


Oh, but I'm not surprised to learn you didn't actually read anyone's
questions on the issues, other than to rant back at the guy you
accused of conpiring against and attacking you.  For all you said,
that you didn't actually read anyone's questions doesn't surprise me
at all.

The issue of actually listening and conversing with people just wasn't
that important when you've already got power.  Nope, that you didn't
read any of the questions or concerns raised by people, in between the
dismissive giggling exclamations of conspiracies is not surprising at
all.  It's all pretty solidly established behaviour to get away from
an issue raised by someone who has no voice to raise an issue.  Well
done.

KP