[WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room

[K P]

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, at least that's a reason, but huh? Why would I expect this any
> more from CW than from any other of the 10 new admins created each
> week? In fact, I would expect it less from CW than from most of the
> others, since CW appears to do little other than vandal reverting, and
> avoids almost all controversy, or even stating any opinions.
>
> I appreciate your at least attempting to provide a rationale, but
> seriously, can't you see how farfetched this whole thing is?

Absolutely.
>
> > 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.
>
> Peter Singer, the philosopher and founder of the Great Ape Project?
> Isaac Bashevis Singer, Nobel-prize winning author?
>
Both.  Hellaciously incredible guess.  I may have to give more credit
to YOUR wild speculations in the future.

KP