On 9/21/02 12:02 PM, "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina(a)charter.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
I blocked someone for repeatedly inserting text
from a copyrighted website
about Amiga operating systems. Should someone be blocked for that?
phma
In my opinion? Absolutely they should be blocked. This is not like my
too-quick-on-the-draw proposal of earlier which was - I now think rightly -
thoroughly criticized by the list participants. This situation conforms to
the standard for calling something "vandalism": *repeated* efforts to
insert non-useful (and in this case actively harmful) text.
I mean, we have the blurb about not inserting copyright text in boldface on
each edit page. They had every opportunity to post something on a talk page
if they thought the material was legitimately usable; instead they (I
presume) just chose to repeat it rather than discuss it. I think your action
completly appropriate.
Of course, it's somewhat situational. It depends on what the actual
background of "repeatedly" is. If someone inserts copyrighted material which
is then removed, with notification why (perhaps a mention in Talk), and the
person puts it back, then that's cause for concern.
Blocking is a last-ditch mechanism. Efforts should be made to find other
solutions. If there aren't other solutions, then temporary blocking is
appropriate.
It's important to remember that IP blocking is an imperfect tool. It's not
just the social implications that merit concern when considering whether to
use it.