[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 6/18/07, 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.

Huh? Who is involved in the "clique" who "ganged up" on your "clique"?

>
> You and Slim Virgin have been attacking people for discussing the
> issue of CW's RFA without answering any questions,

No, I've just been dumbfounded at the bizarre conspiracy theories
being bandied about.

>
> If you don't know me, just assume I'm not talking to you.

Then why are you responding in this thread, on this topic?

>
> 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.

Maybe I can encourage you to be more coherent, and actually make some
sort of comprehensible point or comment.