User:Galexander

I rarely login, I prefer to edit anonymously because I am too lazy to login and because I have no interest in accumulating mojo. Mojo is bad for wikipedia. Barnstars are mojo.

Please consider this thought experiment. Suppose Fred and 1.2.3.4 are having a debate about coverage of some political issue and they are of course both right, and are having some difficulty coming to a compromise. 1.2.3.4 keeps on making edits attempting to find a compromise, but Fred immediately reverts everything that 1.2.3.4 does, removing both the good and the bad, and failing to take any steps to reach a compromise which would allow the good information into the article without compromising neutrality. Before too long, Fred posts a threat in User_talk:1.2.3.4... "If you continue this behavior, you will be banned. I know plenty of administrators." 1.2.3.4 is personally offended and from there the debate proceeds in a more personal matter on both their User_talk pages until Fred decides he has enough "evidence" to do what we male apes love: prove our domination.

Now, it so happens that on User:Fred there is a barnstar awarded by John, and John is good friends with Jim, who is an administrator. Fred doesn't actually know Jim, but he goes ahead and asks Jim to ban 1.2.3.4. Jim looks at User:Fred and sees the barnstar with John's name on it and says "oh, John likes him? I bet he's right then." and bans 1.2.3.4 without even investigating the content in question.

Do you believe it is possible? Do you believe it is common? Do you believe it has a chilling effect on actual subject experts who desire to contribute? Do you believe the chilling effect is countered by the advantage that Fred gives us when he is not being obstinate? Do you believe there is a better way? Please respond on User_talk:galexander.