Editing Witch-hunt

On a [[large public wiki]], a '''witch-hunt''' is the attempt to discover or assert that several [[userid]]s or [[IP number]]s "are the same person" (see [[ad hominem]]) and to seek to discourage them from contributing by means of asserting some negative [[reputation]], and further, using that as an excuse for [[ad hominem revert]] or even [[ad hominem delete]] or (most seriously)[[outing]].  

As an actual behaviour-shaping tactic, this rarely or never works, as genuine [[trolls]] seek such negative reputation as a sign of their prowess - in particular they seek to be extremely hated by [[inquisitor]]s, since "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and others who object to '''witch-hunt'''s on principle will eventually find and offer direct help to the [[troll]], thus making the wiki [[troll-friendly]].  Co-operating [[patroll]]s tend to work in pairs or more, and may actively cooperate to drive '''witch-hunt'''ers crazy and make them make wrong decisions.  This is simple, as such hunters are already foolishly attempting to do [[psychiatry]] without a license, and, already making wrong decisions almost by definition.  On the Internet it is never easy to be sure of identity, with so many IP proxies and other people's text easy to retrieve and re-use.

There are many good examples, but, it would be a poor idea to list any, since, that would only encourage [[inquisitor]]s to seek out and punish those who make [[troll-friendly offer]]s.  That pretty much says it all about their integrity and tactics - they see the world in simple terms of friends and enemies.  Sadly this requires everone else to, as well, and note [[enemy projects]] that they have taken over, and which will tend to train others to employ the same tactics.

[[Consumerium]] should resist or reject such people to the point of letting them be [[driven off by trolls]].  This is not a perfect solution and should be employed only for [[inquisitor]]s and the more persistent [[GodKing]] minions - those who literally can't seem to comprehend any other way to do things.  It should eventually rely on [[factionally defined]] ways to seek out and assign editorial judgement to particular types of assertions, and rely on [[faction]]s to approve or disapprove edits, so "who wrote this" is never an issue.  In fact, that is pretty much the only way one can get [[identity]] out of the editorial decision.