You bet I was heated up, I still am. However, after having read Tim's
response and after some discussion I realized it was best to wait until
Jimbo could get to the list and read the thread before continuing.
Sorry for not bringing that to the list earlier.
I find it interesting though that of all the objections to banning this
account I've seen here on the list and on various talk pages have been
based solely on procedure. I find nothing anywhere along the lines of
"this person doesn't deserved to be banned, this person's not a troll,
this person's a fine contributor"; what I mainly see is "we haven't
discussed it enough yet."
But we -have- discussed it, and at length, for over two weeks! And to
be perfectly honest, if the blocking mechanism had been in place on
September 7, and the caveats not established for its use, I would have
banned this account then, when it became perfectly obvious that the
person behind it was in no way interested in anything but disrupting
the Wikipedia. (Maybe some recall my "hurry-up" email to the list on
that date.) BuddhaInside's actions have changed not a bit since then,
while we have been sitting back discussing and discussing.
Our method of ridding the system of users that are clearly out for
nothing but destruction needs a serious overhaul. I understand now
that the new code was implemented more or less specifically to deal
with Michael's accounts. On the other hand, I've told Michael
flat-out, "if you'll quit acting like that, you'll be allowed in."
Realistically, there is no way to know if someone is a banned user
except by their actions. If Michael were to log in under a generic AOL
IP and begin editing articles in a responsible manner, we'd have to let
it slide, because there is no way to know whether it was him. And if I
logged in and started editing like Michael, I'd be almost immediately
(and rightfully!) blocked.
The point I'm trying to make here is that we can't ban -people-, only
-actions-. If someone is -acting- like a banned user, they should -be-
banned, regardless of who they are, because we have no way of knowing
who they are. (And of course, concessions should be made for new
contributors, which BuddhaInside clearly is not.) If they then want to
make another account and start acting responsibly, great. If they make
another account and do the same thing, ban them again.
And as I type this, BuddhaInside continues his/her silly antics, as we
continue ours. I sincerely hope it doesn't take another two weeks to
come to a conclusion on this.
-Hephaestos