Guy Chapman aka JzG schrieb:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:52:43 +0100, Raphael Wegmann raphael@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.
What I doubt is the "only" in your initial claim.
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.
None of those methods is verifiable by a normal editor. Therefore CheckUser and "other methods" are a kind of "witchcraft" for non-admins, where only the adepts make decisions.
Raphael, I remember you from the Mohammed cartoons argument. You are not stupid, but I believe you are naive.
You seemed to be a nice guy. :-b
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.
I am not interested in joining any special tribunal. Instead I focus on analyzing the underlying mechanisms.