3 ms·
NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
by noobermin 8y ago
NeilN isn't the abusive or sinister one here. It is the fact that KalHolmann's posts were closed on the boards that is the issue.
- tptacek 8y agoOk, look at the admin who closed it --- and their talk page, where they talk more about the reason they closed the COI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Also no apparent connection to the topic. There over a thousand admins on Wikipedia; most of them don't know or have any connection to each other.
- noobermin 8y agoI'm confused about your point, but am I correct in you're trying to prove there is no cabal by pointing out the replies from individual admins? It's possible that it's a coincidence that these events are occurring, but to outsiders, it looks like circling the wagons. Regarding JzG's reply, it sounds a little disingenuous when they claim Cross is "editing with an opinion" and those bringing COI up are "people with a vested interest." I probably believe those against him have a vested interest, but that Cross who openly admitted to having a feud with the pages of people he edits (TFA's point) is the one operating with acceptable behavior is okay is strange. It seems like me the best way to address the warring is just to openly discuss it.