[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[Skyring]

On Nov 20, 2007 12:14 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Skyring wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2007 6:24 AM, Flameviper Velifang wrote: >
> >>  So I edited with an alternate account. Consensus formed to unblock my
> >> main account, and so it was unblocked.
> >>  A day after I finally got a fresh start and things were looking up,
> >> Jpgordon did a checkuser and then blocked both accounts indefinitely.
> >>  So now I'm back in the bottomless pit where all banned users are kept.
> >>
> > Don't look to find justice in Wikipedia. It's nice if it happens, but
> don't
> > expect it.
> >
> > Just create a new account and avoid behaviour that will get you noticed
> by
> > those who hated you under the old name. They'll eventually go and find
> > someone else to persecute.
> >
> > Alternatively, if you're bent on disruption, then expect to be
> disrupted.
> > See my first point above.
> I think that this is a perfectly sane approach, but it seems that some people
> are determined to uncover sockpuppets, against whom they will
> apply the letter of the law.  I still prefer to look on sockpuppetry as
> a secondary offence.  If there is nothing offensive from the new account
> there should be no need to check it, and its accidental discovery should
> carry no consequences, even from an otherwise banned user.
>  Admittedly, the banned user may have a congenital disability for playing
> nice, and he would thus make himself obvious.
>
If a banned user creates a sock and devotes himself to making useful edits,
without rekindling the fires of disruption, then how does it benefit the
project to tracking him down and kicking him off? That sort of thing merely
causes frustration, unpleasantness, and more disruption.

-- Peter in Canberra