On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:06:33 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
Fact is, I am
getting just a little bit tired of the fact that some
people give a very strong appearance of extending a greater
assumption of good faith towards the likes of Bagley and Barber than
they do towards those of us who work to protect the project form the
pernicious influence of such people.
And Senator McCarthy, I'm sure, was tired of the fact that some
people seemed to be extending more assumptions of good faith towards
the communists than towards those like the Senator who worked to
protect the country from their pernicious influence.
And that's your honest opinion, is it? That by blocking determined
abusers who have shown time and again that they will stop at nothing
to get their way, we are engaging in McCarthyite witch hunts?
Sorry, no.
Wikipedia is extraordinarily tolerant of dissenting opinion. People
only et banned when they have made heroic efforts to prove beyond
doubt that they are utterly unable to contribute productively.
In Awbrey's case, the final straw was attempts to write policy
pages on "expert editors" so as to allow him to continue to add
original research to the article over which he has obsessed ever
since he arrived. And he was kicked from this list for the same
reason.
The policy in respect of banned editors is, and always has been,
block on sight. And for very good reasons.
Jon Awbrey absolutely is not a Paul Robeson.
> Which does not change the fact that I do believe,
and I am perfectly
> happy to stand up and be counted on this, that active participation
> on Wikipedia Review, as it is *right now*, is fundamentally
> incompatible with being a good Wikipedian.
> And I believe that the whole Alkivar business proves this.
I looked over some of the pages in that case, and saw
no mention of
Wikipedia Review except where you brought it up yourself.
Don't be naive, Dan.
> Nobody else has to agree with this, it's not a
proposed policy, but
> it is a statement of how I feel about that site *right now* based on
> what its prominent members are doing *right now*.
You have a right to your own feelings, as do I to mine,
and I hope
nobody has to live in fear of any "banhammer" for holding them.
No, the only people who need to fear that are the *already banned*
abusers of the project whose socks we are blocking on an almost
daily basis.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG