On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:59:40 lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Yes, he is very annoying--all the more so because he's obviously well-educated and therefore hard to dismiss as an ordinary crackpot. He hasn't been too terribly destructive. He just cranks out reams and reams of subjectivist rants with quality inversely proportionate to their quantity. But one or two sentences out of every page he writes actually has some interesting insight worth keeping, and he does put up with my abuse pretty well, so I haven't yet been tempted to suggest any action.
He's driving me nuts...
Besides, his anonymity will always serve to minimize his credibility, so he'll lose a lot of arguments on those grounds alone. I know I've suggested in the past that perhaps only logged-in users should be allowed to edit, but I think I'm more inclined to leave things as they are, and just have a social norm here that anonymous editors should simply suffer the consequences to the credibility and lose arguments by default.
I consider it quite rude that whomever it is doesn't do us the courtesy of registering even a nom de plume and clearly label his points on the talk pages. It makes having a discussion with him/her/it a PITA as you can't immediately distinguish who is saying what.
Is it time to make it wikipedia policy that you should sign your posts on talk pages?