[Wikipedia-l] Lir and Christopher Columbus

[lcrocker at nupedia.com]

> I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just
> slightly disturbed that we are getting into the habit
> of publicly proposing, on this list, to use the banning
> power to settle acrimonious edit wars.  I've noticed
> this in the case of Lir and of DW.

I think it should be made clear, though, that these bans
are being proposed not because of the /content/ these
folks produce, but because of their /abuse of the process/.
It is their actions that cause problems, not their words.
Think of it like the court system: even if you're on the
right side of an argument, if don't file the pleadings
correctly, don't make your court dates, disrupt the courtroom
with out-of-order rants, or otherwise refuse to work within
the process, the court can and should rule against you by
default.  That's the only way to keep the process working.

The content of any article will change many times, so it's
not that important what any one person adds, removes, or
changes.  What's important is the process, and Lir and DW
are showing flagrant disrespect for the process.

In the early days of Wikipedia before we had specific
processes and guidelines, it was right and good that we
were a free-for-all; we were in the process of discovering
what works and what doesn't.  But we're in a new phase now.
We have a process, and we know it can work, and we know
what doesn't work.  We should take advantage of that knowledge
and /enforce/ the process we know works.

I do agree that a short-duration "cooling off" ban is silly.
People should either be banned or not, and if they have been
banned, they should have to appeal to a sysop for reinstatement,
showing that they understand and will abide by our standards.

A simple test to think about is this: if the person in question
took exactly the same actions, but was on the other side of the
argument, would his actions be just as disruptive?  I think Lir
and DW pass that test.  If they can't learn to contribute to the
process of Wikipedia as a whole, I think the fact that they may
contribute a useful sentence or two to other articles, or the
fact that they are sincere, are irrelevant to the bigger picture
that they are disruptive of the process, and we would lose nothing
by getting rid of them.