This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faethon Ghost (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 20 November 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:03, 20 November 2008 by Faethon Ghost (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)You cannot tell for sure whether there is consensus on that or not, but let me give you a similar to my case example, taken from real life:
Suppose you have left 10000 dollars in the middle of the road. Someone is going to steal them, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing. The same happens in my case, I published my password, and it is very possible someone is going to revert it, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing publicly known passwords. Let me remind you that in real life there is a consensus NOT to steal the 10000 dollars you have found in the middle of the road, and the one who steals those dollars should be punished, if caught. And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalize an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit. They are very useful, primarily because they obliterate wikipedians' inflated ego, especially the whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as being professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day. That’s why I believe there is consensus among healthy wikipedians to protect guest accounts and maybe punish any whimsical wikipedian writer who may change the guest account's password because of hate or any other pathological reason.
In my opinion if we really want to know whether there is a consensus or not for accounts owned by more than one real persons, we have to put a vote for it. In any case, it is the community (or Jimbo himself) that has to legislate (or not legislate) about public accounts case (known also as guest accounts in other communities), and NOT the ArbCom!
I said that a whimsical-type wikipedian writer thinking himself as being a professional writer has an inflated ego, but I didn’t say that he is considered as unhealthy! I characterized as unhealthy the persons who chase public accounts and revert their passwords and quotes without those accounts to commit any type of vandalism or illegal action and without of course being any kind of real danger for wikipedia (for obvious reasons). It’s like putting in jail someone, just because you think he/she may commit a crime, before the crime is committed! This is unhealthy and the persons thinking like that have a mental disorder, similar to crazy persons. Unhealthy persons have also another tendency, they always tend to group each other and form a mob, then they start to oppress and ban healthy persons, in order to form their unhealthy initialized loose majority.
There are plenty of forums around internet that have guest accounts. The fact that the unhealthy initialized loose majority of contemporary wikipedians bans consistently everyone who thinks that guest accounts are cool, this does not mean that there is no one who believes that.
You are fooling no one. Nobody believes your crackpot voting theories, your transparent rationalizations for "public accounts", and most especially not your pathetic parade of badly disguised sockpuppets. No one. If this continues, people will become annoyed enough to institute disciplinary proceedings and give you the boot, and all your bluster and logic-chopping will not do you one teeny bit of good. In fact, it will have the opposite effect.
You and your unhealthy friends are the ones who have stolen my previous guest accounts, and you are now the owners of at least 50 sockpuppets. And of course you are using them to vandalize wikipedia in order to accuse me. But I am not responsible for your vandalisms! I am only responsible for my single public account, and I am commited to revert any vandalisms done through this single public account I own, and not through the rest ones. You are a pathetic clan! I just said that you are an initialized loose tyranic majority, that bans consistently everyone who believes that public accounts are cool, then you have the audacity to claim that there is no one who believes that! And now, predictably, you are planning to give me the boot, to prove to everybody who exactly you are.
Project Plausible Deniability is a failure, just like your Average rule and Quadratic rule nonsense.