Regarding the recent criticism of Metapedia, I have some thoughts:
Why didn't that hostile moderator Westwall just argue logically with that user (Anon9)?
Looking at their chat history, Anon9 wrote civil arguments and shows a lot of interest in constructively contributing to Metapedia, while all Westwall does is using dictator rhetoric and the infamous "Because I said so" -hammer/logic terminating phrase.
Westwall is pretty much a lite version of Bbb23.
If the argument was that Westwall had no time for the discussion with a user, how come Westwall made over 1000 edits during the last 30 days on Metapedia?
And what else did he expect when becoming a Metapedia moderator? It's the purpose of his voluntary position.
(I know, MediaWiki calls moderators administrators , but it technically is a misnomer. Real administrators are called Buerocrats by MediaWiki.)
A moderator who uses moderative powers to suppress a legitimately arguing user probably has something to hide and knows he has no chance of logically winning that argument. If he had logical arguments, he would use those instead of using the banhammer.
Regarding the recent criticism of Metapedia, I have some thoughts:
Why didn't that hostile moderator Westwall just argue logically with that user (Anon9)?
Looking at their chat history, Anon9 wrote civil arguments and shows a lot of interest in constructively contributing to Metapedia, while all Westwall does is using dictator rhetoric and the infamous *"Because I said so"*-hammer/logic terminating phrase.
Westwall is pretty much a lite version of Bbb23.
If the argument was that Westwall had *no time* for the discussion with a user, how come Westwall made over 1000 edits during the last 30 days on Metapedia?
And what else did he expect when becoming a Metapedia moderator? It's the purpose of his voluntary position.
(I know, MediaWiki calls moderators *administrators*, but it technically is a misnomer. Real administrators are called *Buerocrats* by MediaWiki.)
-----
A moderator who uses moderative powers to suppress a legitimately arguing user probably has something to hide and knows he has no chance of logically winning that argument. If he had logical arguments, he would use *those* instead of using the banhammer.
(post is archived)