On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:28:10 +1100, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
We voluntarily undertake not to run frivolous CheckUser checks, or to reveal personal data per our privacy policy, but there is nothing illegal about CheckUser.
Some admins have the uncanny ability to smell out and ban a sock without benefit of CheckUser. In some cases, CheckUser would be a hindrance to this ability.
My point is that such zealous and overzealous behaviour harms the project by removing a source of good edits, and by creating needless disruption. Are we writing an encyclopaedia, or are we playing ego games?
Seems we're looking at a different project, and maybe a different definition of ego games. See, for example, this article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sign_relation&action=history
See how many different individuals you think are at work here.
* Yolanda Zilwaukee * DoubleBlue * Closedmouth * Buchanan's Navy Sec * Doubtentry * VOCØ * Wolf of the Steppes * Fallopius Manque * Bare In Mind * Education Is The Basis Of Law And Order * Preveiling Opinion Of Dominant Opinion Group * REBBUØ * RABBUØ * DEBBUØ * REBBU
This article, by the way, is not the worst hit.
If you really want me to waste a CheckUser's time then I guess I don't mind asking, but really it's not that hard. The talk page of Yolanda Zilwaukee might as well have been signed with the author's real name, as anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with this particular banned user will attest.
Guy (JzG)