QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:30pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 15th March 2012, 7:10pm)
What really fucks me off is how everyone is blaming the Wikipedia Review
Just be glad that that loon Wnt didn't single you out and try to convince people that you'd accused others of being paedophiles, like he did with me.
Earlier I said that he may have learnt something. I was premature on that assessment.
QUOTE
For example, what happens if ArbCom blocks someone as a suspected pedophile, but he comes back, sweet-talks them a bit, so they let him quietly slip back in under a new name and edit, and after a while it turns out he did something terrible. Then we're in the same position as the Catholic Church reassigning priests, and because it is a centralized decision, we could end up on hook for the damages! I think it makes more sense to let the whole community watch and decide, no secrets, no leaked no-logged IRC logs, no email-based private consensuses, just people thinking things through right out here in the open. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Get this Wnt you stupid dumb fuck! You cannot decide this by public debate it will always turn into a lynch mob, whether the accused is guilty or not. You need trained staff who can deal with the issue away from public eyes. You need to have a clear procedure, and the person that is making the complaint needs to be kept up to date, or at least acknowledged that the issue is being investigated.
Otherwise you get the cluster fuck of dumb fuckwits like yourself that think that they can sleuth out the truth. In 90% of the case you can't and in 90% of those that you can you'll still have ignorant cunts like Niabot, Mattbick, and Saibo picking over the niceties and dreaming up excuses. It needs experienced professionals, doing their jobs.