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.
In Awbrey's case, the final straw was attempts to write policy pages on "expert editors" so as to allow him to continue to add original research to the article over which he has obsessed ever since he arrived.
What is so dangerous about s.o. trying to write a new policy? Did you write on a policy before? If it's crap, it will end in /dev/null anyway.
What is wrong is that in Awbrey's case it prolonged still further the tedious business of trying to get him to stop inserting original research.
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.
Raphael, I remember you from the Mohammed cartoons argument. You are not stupid, but I believe you are naive. 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.
Guy (JzG)