I appreciate your thoughts here. Please do not let the (understandable) less-than-serious/oh-there's-nothing-wrong responses stop you from posting.
On Jun 20, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
<snip>
If you read what I have written so far, it should be clear that I am not disputing any of the fine sentiments in [[WP:POLICY]], nor am I disputing the 3RR action. I cited those details only because people have been asking me for more concrete examples of things that are leading me to say what I've been saying from Post 1.
And I appreciate you doing that. However, as you said above, the specific thing that happened to you isn't the real problem. As I understand it, the real problem, in your view, is that disruptive editors are able to use our rules and practices to gain regular, consistent advantage over good editors. I believe this is possible - what would be most useful from you would be your specific, detailed thoughts on how this occurs (what methods the disruptive editors use, etc.), and (if you have them) suggestions on what we might to do solve the problem. You've hinted at such things, mentioning sockpuppet issues, but it would be great if you could lay them out in specific detail. It seems like you may be planning to do this, if so, just take this as further evidence that you should. ;-)
Thanks again for your criticism ,
Jesse Weinstein