Let's talk about this--if not here, then somewhere, because it's an issue now and
will only become more of an issue if bannings are being applie arbitrarily or unfairly.
1) When is it appropriate to ban someone from wikipedia?
2) Who should be able to ban?
3) When should people hesitate or refuse to ban people?
4) How long should people be banned for?
I'm not saying we need another policy or "rule to consider"--God knows
everyone seems to stop at "rules", forgetting "to consider." But
honestly, I think the issue needs some thought.
Personally, my feelings are that 1) when defacing articles or when adding profanities or
ridiculous statements (In 1496, Columbus flew to Pluto with his friend from K-Pax) and
doing that not just once but several times.
2) Fewer people should be able to ban than are able to now. It was a burden for Larry,
and he was criticized severely for it, but one person is not a cabal; and several people
making debatable decisions quickly turns into de facto policy.
3) We should not ban a contributor when involved with the situation personally or
emotionally.
4) People should not be banned for long at all. Give people the benefit of the doubt.
Several people on wikipedia, and on this list, started out dubbed "trolls" or
something else; and we could just as easily argue that Lir was simply a highly
accomplished troll, and that trolling therefore is vandalism. Is it? No, I don't
think so.
How long do we intend to keep people banned? There are people on the list from August.
Anyway, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm putting on my asbestos
suit now.
kq