[WikiEN-l] To have or to have not power -- "giggle," "giggle"

[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, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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, elisabeth bauer <eflebeth at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > 2007/6/18, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his
> > > > > > > own opinion about it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > greetings,
> > > > > > > elian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > It's on my talk page, links galore.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
> > > > >
> > > > > > The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that
> > > > > > gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not
> > > > > > have access to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
> > > > >
> > > > > Where has Slim done so?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Both revealed this information in RfAs,
> > > > >
> > > > > Where has Slim done so?
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically
> > > > > > charged times only.  Enforce it all of the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I
> > > > > come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time
> > > > > is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when
> > > > > people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the
> > > > > hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make
> > > > > all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain
> > > > > what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP
> > > > > Botany.
> > > > >
> > > > I do back up my claims.  I send them in to the list all the time, just
> > > > for you, all  my little AfD links, like the assertion that American
> > > > Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like
> > > > Rock climbing for deletion.
> > >
> > > What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this
> > > > issue.
> > >
> > > You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had
> > > revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for
> > > that claim?
> > >
> > Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he
> > edited through a tor account?
>
> No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I
> would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question
> before spouting even more wild accusations.
>
> What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you
> allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
>


It's not a wild accusation, it's just a mistake, and since you already
posted a letter to me clearly stating my user name, yawn over the
baseless threat.  I looked at the Armedblowfish link briefly, and saw
that Slim Virgin had asked--so apparently I made a mistake.

Wild accusations, spouting, accuse, accuse accuse.

Okay, back to the subject matter, I guess it's good that only one
admin with check user tools is out there revealing private information
gained through check user to everyone on Wikipedia.

KP