On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:59:40 lcrocker(a)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?
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel rgmerk(a)mira.net
Go You Big Red Fire Engine
-- Unknown Audience Member at Adam Hills standup gig
------------------------------------------------------------