Durova wrote:
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric: take
a small portion of the
actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in
various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game.
There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia
has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result
that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked
by it.
This is exactly right. The key is to look at the pattern of negative
disruption over a long period of time, rather than looking at any one
incident in isolation.
There are several users who need to find a new hobby by this metric. I
am hoping that a few of them will chose it of their own volition. It is
time to bring back the notion of WikiLove, and the idea of congeniality
and the recollection that we are a charitable project to do good... and
stop the use of Wikipedia by people who are interested in little more
than muckraking and harassing.
How hard can it be to find reliable sources for an
article? When you locate
them, discuss them maturely. Wikipedia isn't your water cooler. Neither is
this list.
Exactly.
--Jimbo