Jayjg wrote: Which is why Wikipedia should be LESS dogmatically officious about enforcing rules-for-rules-sake than an actual court of law. In this case, Jayjg's behavior seems to have been MORE officious than the actual legal system. I know some police and other people who work within the actual legal system. Real cops and judges know that they don't have to enforce every law on the books. They use discretion. If the police notice that someone has a broken tail light or an expired driver's license, they may just issue a warning and tell the guy to get it fixed. On the other hand, if they suspect that the guy is guilty of more serious crimes, they may choose to maximally enforce and investigate the minor infractions as a tactic to facililtate investigation and prosecution of the more serious crimes. In this case, we're talking about a user (CharlotteWeb) who seems to have a long history of constructive editing, and no evidence that she is a vandal or a sockpuppet. The fact that sockpuppets use Tor does not mean that using Tor proves she is a sockpuppet. (Elementary logic lesson: "a implies b" does not mean that "b implies a.") In the absence of other evidence that CharlotteWebb is a problem user, therefore, Jayjg should have used discretion and raised his question privately rather than publicly in the RfA. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------