Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Yes, I will,
but I won't be criticizing Erik for
this, even if we all
end up agreeing that this wasn't the right thing to
do in this case.
So you agree that, in some cases but not necessarilly,
longtime logged-in contributors can be banned without
discussion?
Temporarily, sure! For example, if someone starts going through and
putting pornographic pictures on articles about Mother Theresa or
things of that nature, the sort of stuff we have always called "simple
vandalism".
Now, "simple vandalism" has never been clearly defined, it's sort of
an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.
USUALLY in cases like that, we should assume the best of the person
involved. Maybe they were drunk. Maybe someone stole or guessed
their password. I mean, if you started doing stuff like that, I'd
want your account banned temporarily, but I'd also want everyone to
forgive you if it turned out to be totally not your fault later on.
RK was also a very active participant. Why don't
you
cut him some slack?
I think it's a bit early to use the past tense in speaking of him,
isn't it? If he really doesn't want to work on wikipedia ever again,
I think that'd be a shame.
Sure, I think that's right. I like RK. I'm one of his biggest
defenders, I guess. I think he's a pain in the neck, but I also think
that his edits are good, and that *sometimes* when he feels
persecuted, it's because he *is* being persecuted. And he's way way
way over the top sometimes.
---Jimbo