"Even if admins were blocking a specific POV- so what?" Well, here's why that thinking might be dangerous: most banned editors are banned for disruptively arguing their POV, nor their POV. If we ban accounts on the basis of POVs like already banned editors, that would be a severe error, and compromise our neutrality, our effectiveness, and our ability to criticize ourselves. I'd let this go - I don't normally write in - but it seems that too many people have begun believing that 'sounding like' people who are dangerous for *other reasons *is in itself reason for banning. That's just happened at AN/I, for example which is why I've broken the rules I've set myself and written in. We've got to be careful to avoid false positives in our identification. I agree with Joshua on the effectiveness of textual analysis to catch sockpuppets, so don't make this remark about that. It isn't. It's about how this method must not appear to be used to scotch criticism of our own on-WP behavior. RR Quoting joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Featured%20editors%3F&In-Reply-To=20071112103004.GB16056%40psi.co.at> *Mon Nov 12 14:16:40 UTC 2007*