On 12/08/07, Armed Blowfish
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Another analogy: A guy has obsessive compulsive
disorder, which he is
open about. (He does not, however, state the reason for his obsessive
compulsive disorder, which is that he was beaten many times as a
child.) Being obsessive compulsive, he keeps changing British
spelling to American. No revert warring, never on the same article,
but he does this many times. He can't help it - he's obsessive
compulsive. Aside from that, he does good work - he's written some
[...]
Would you say that he is not banned merely
because he could get
unblocked if he merely agrees to stop changing spellings? Would you
say it is his 'choice', because he could stop changing spellings, as
though obsessive compulsiveness is something that can be turned off at
the flip of a switch? Or how is this situation significantly
different?
There have been real cases like this - Mike Garcia in his heyday, for
example. That his behaviour was due to a mental problem did not make
it Wikipedia's problem to put up with. He got all of AOL blocked quite
a lot ...
- d.
There is a difference, however, between 'We love you, but
unfortunately we have to ban you,' and 'Evil insane person! Ban!
Ban! Ban!'
Armed Blowfish