[WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room

[K P]

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/18/07, 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?
> >
> > Actually, I believe the phrase you were looking for is "The Cabal
> > (tm)". But I think Dan Tobias is right, and that it functions more
> > like a clique. And as for its membership: please. Anyone who has
> > followed this and its related crises over the past months can provide
> > a quite precise set of names.
>
> So, again, why would "The Cabal (tm)" specifically want to stop CW
> from becoming an admin? What nefarious purpose is served by this?
>

CW is a loose cannon, you can't count on her to always take your side
in the issue, because even if you get along with her, she'll tell you
if she thinks you're acting rotten.  She might be an issue when groups
of admins gang up on editors who are accusing admins of abusing their
powers.

But, no, the cabal doesn't discuss its plans with peons--it wouldn't
be the cabal if it did, would it?  I don't belong to any cabals, so I
may not have all my cabal facts straight.  I do read Singer, though.

KP