On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
> 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.
I doubt that.
Amorrow
JB196
Daniel Brandt
All left editing for a long time after it became evident that they
were utterly unable to work within policy.
So it seems your doubts are ill-founded.
> 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.
What is so dangerous about s.o. trying to write a new
policy?
Did you write on a policy before? If it's crap, it will end
in /dev/null anyway.
What is wrong is that in Awbrey's case it prolonged still further
the tedious business of trying to get him to stop inserting original
research.
> 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.
And what kind of magic is involved in finding those
socks?
In what way is it different from a witch hunt?
The average sockpuppet is traceable via IP using CheckUser and other
methods, whereas witch hunts require ducking stools and the like.
Raphael, I remember you from the Mohammed cartoons argument. You
are not stupid, but I believe you are naive. Your post indicates a
profound lack of understanding of the people we're discussing and
their past history. If you want it all then I guess we can take it
offline, because I'm guessing most people here know the back story
well enough.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG