Anthere wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Robert wrote:
The fact that not a single person here seems to care scares
the hell out of me. If it can be done to one person, it can
be done to any of us. (Just ask some of the many
well-documented victims of the Internet Scientology wars,
who have been threatened, stalked, and whose lives have
been damaged by maniancs from the Church of Scientology.)
This isn't a theoretical issue; its real.
You kind of lost all your support and credibility when you called
all of us Nazis, and failed to apologize for it subsequently. Why
then would anybody pay attention to anything you have to say?
Stan
Well... I *do* care.
Yes, Robert said wrong things and should have apogized later.
Yes, Robert gave his name himself, so it is not outing.
But, I do care that someone feels he is threatened in his real life
because of his wikipedia activity.
He *says* he feels threatened, but given his track record of abuse,
bullying, and misrepresentation, I'll bet a dollar he doesn't
really feel threatened at all - I think he's just using this as a
technique to fish for sympathy from the gullible.
If I genuinely felt threatened, I would go to the police, not
post lengthy complaining emails to a public mailing list, where
there is not one single person who has any power or capability
to protect me from an actual would-be criminal. It's not like
WPers are going to fly over from Australia or wherever, arm
themselves, and stand guard at my front door.
Stan
I think that whether an editor is a good standing one in the community
or not, as soon as we accept them as editors, we should held similar
standards. If we just stick to facts, I'd say a threat stays a threat
whoever receive it. In front of two users threatened, I do not think it
is correct to help one and to be rude to the other.
So, I am glad of the AC decision.