On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@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