On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:55:19 -0800, Durova
<nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm a firm believer in the principle that ethical
decisions where good
people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences.
If another editor is harassed in real life, I respect that editor's
confidentiality and choices. My responsibility as an editor and an
administrator includes seeing to it that Wikipedia does not continue to be a
platform for harassment in that situation. Hence, I follow up on banning
the sockpuppets and closing whatever loopholes the harasser and his or her
confederates attempt to exploit. Most of the time, quiet and efficient
deflection is sufficient to end the problem.
Yes. And sometimes, at present, this is then reverted with "how
dare you suppress this! censorship!"
We could all do with a bit more AGF here. Some people give a very
good impression of assuming that any removal of any link is
motivated by a desire to censor legitimate criticism. Some admins
think that this makes the people who stir up such drama *evil*. I
don't think either of these views is productive. But neither do I
think we should tolerate arguments based on points of non-existent
principle (e.g. free speech) when an explanation has been made in
pragmatic and specific terms (e.g. offsite harassment, banned users
advocating content changes in offsite forums). Wikipedia is not a
free speech zone and not anarchy either.
If anyone would like to propose a policy specifically allowing
banned users to contribute to Wikipedia by posting their opinions in
external venues, then we can see what the community thinks about
that.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG