Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 454: Line 454:  
:::::::Blocking those who specifically accuse you of abusing your authority is an unprofessional conflict of interests. Obviously you're not going to side with the people who are accusing you of abuse, therefore a non biased third party should be involved in mediating these conflicts, not "I've got the banhammer, so I win" kind of exchanges.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 12:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::::Blocking those who specifically accuse you of abusing your authority is an unprofessional conflict of interests. Obviously you're not going to side with the people who are accusing you of abuse, therefore a non biased third party should be involved in mediating these conflicts, not "I've got the banhammer, so I win" kind of exchanges.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 12:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 
This entire section is a most unedifying display of intimidatory, gang mentality. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 
This entire section is a most unedifying display of intimidatory, gang mentality. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:47, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
<ol><li>On a lighter note: I'd think that everyone would applaud spreading ''dissent amongst a rabble of leftist malcontents, saboteurs, infiltrators and parodists.''
 +
<li>Conservapedia often reminds me of a city on the hill, under siege by vandals. But it doesn't help that Bugler shoots at the relief force, i.e., the new editors signing in.
 +
<li>Of course, editors with ''obviously'' obnoxious names should be banned - indefinitely. But if there is any doubt, why block them preemptively? I'd think it's more harmful to disappoint a innocent newcomer by blocking him with some flippant  remarks á là "we know your kind" then to allow some parodist to make one or two revealing edits.
 +
<li>One person doesn't make a gang - though I'm feeling intimidated by you, Bugler.
 +
</ol>--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 13:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
604

edits

Navigation menu