I feel like this is more a post-rationalisation of "her" actions. Of course I am beginning to understand that we have to wait until a certain person realises it is beyond all doubt that another certain person is the same person as a third certain person. Which judging by time will not be an exceptional amount of time, of course users have already quit because of that person deciding to hold fiat power just like that third certain person did funnily enough.
"Motivation" being silencing dissent of course. I don't think certain persons really understand the implications of what is in effect a user without any powers suddenly wanting to push through certain changes to their own advantage, which brings me into a state of Deja Vu.
Of course considering the habits of "her", we know that "she" likes to remove a lot of content, which means that I would not like "her" defining what other users can or can't say.
Of course this was "discussed". Behind the back of the community that certain people claim to support, and of course "discussed" to the point where a simple vote would not pass through and instead to the subject view of the person who "discussed" this with "her".
Of course staff are so behind supporting "her" that when they fraudulently privately contact those with concerns and want answers out of "curiosity", and then they re-feed these private conversations (without permission of the person they talked to, funny that they don't like asking others) to those higher up in a chain in order to try to coerce them into following the party line. The party line that Miraheze was set up to avoid.
Ain't it funny how it happens?
"Motivation" being silencing dissent of course. I don't think certain persons really understand the implications of what is in effect a user without any powers suddenly wanting to push through certain changes to their own advantage, which brings me into a state of Deja Vu.
Of course considering the habits of "her", we know that "she" likes to remove a lot of content, which means that I would not like "her" defining what other users can or can't say.
Of course this was "discussed". Behind the back of the community that certain people claim to support, and of course "discussed" to the point where a simple vote would not pass through and instead to the subject view of the person who "discussed" this with "her".
Of course staff are so behind supporting "her" that when they fraudulently privately contact those with concerns and want answers out of "curiosity", and then they re-feed these private conversations (without permission of the person they talked to, funny that they don't like asking others) to those higher up in a chain in order to try to coerce them into following the party line. The party line that Miraheze was set up to avoid.
Ain't it funny how it happens?