Rick wrote:
I've never understood why somebody would keep committing obvious vandalism (like repeatedly vandalizing Raul's User page) so that they can get rebanned. If Lir was ever interested in editing, he could just come in as an anon and make valid edits, but he seems more interested in disruption than in contribution.
I'm currently trying to flesh out my 'addiction' model of pathological behaviour on Wikipedia. You can see this in editors who are hardworking, but seem to love Wikipedia *just a little too much* and possibly in ways nature didn't really intend. And when they get banned, they go fucking batshit with junkie rage at being cut off from their fix, c.f. Wik and the vandalbot. I'll probably write it up as a "ha ha only serious" page on meta, to go with [[m:MPOV]] and [[m:Don't be a dick]]. In the meantime, it gives the ArbCom considerable flexibility for more creative remedies for bad behaviour than a mere ban, which the real addicts tend to sockpuppet anyway. "You *really* want your fix? Write two 500-word essays on why NPOV and No Personal Attacks are good ideas. If we score each 9/10 or better, you can edit again." I think there's a lot of scope there for really *fixing* behaviour.
- d.