On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe
<the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)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