Tony,
Could you be more specific as to which socks were being 'disruptive'. I saw editors who felt they did not want to have their ID known yet comment on this situation, enganging in discussion.
And as far as your comment of "not making a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia", I believe that comment is not only uncalled for, but completely void of good faith. Furthermore, if someone is acting within the bounds of policy at the time the policy was in effect, then whether you LIKE it or not is really a moot point. No need to accuse others of trolling, or having a Policy Fetish.
-Cascadia. "Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704191655n3be758eekf5a852e09fea2350@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/20/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
In correct, the policy explicitly allows multiple accounts, permitted sockpuppets in certain areas, so long as they arent used to game 3RR or create the illusion of broader consensus. We aren't talking about just a 'lack of a rule' here, its spelled out what you can and can't do.
Don't make a fetish out of written policy on Wikipedia. It is not something to rely on. The conduct of socks on that thread was not our finest hour, and if these socks become more disruptive they will be blocked.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l