Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Yes, I will, but I won't be criticizing Erik for this, even if we all end up agreeing that this wasn't the right thing to do in this case.
So you agree that, in some cases but not necessarilly, longtime logged-in contributors can be banned without discussion?
Temporarily, sure! For example, if someone starts going through and putting pornographic pictures on articles about Mother Theresa or things of that nature, the sort of stuff we have always called "simple vandalism".
Now, "simple vandalism" has never been clearly defined, it's sort of an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.
USUALLY in cases like that, we should assume the best of the person involved. Maybe they were drunk. Maybe someone stole or guessed their password. I mean, if you started doing stuff like that, I'd want your account banned temporarily, but I'd also want everyone to forgive you if it turned out to be totally not your fault later on.
RK was also a very active participant. Why don't you cut him some slack?
I think it's a bit early to use the past tense in speaking of him, isn't it? If he really doesn't want to work on wikipedia ever again, I think that'd be a shame.
Sure, I think that's right. I like RK. I'm one of his biggest defenders, I guess. I think he's a pain in the neck, but I also think that his edits are good, and that *sometimes* when he feels persecuted, it's because he *is* being persecuted. And he's way way way over the top sometimes.
---Jimbo