Jimmy Wales wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious
and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His
personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other
editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on
anything to do with Wikipedia.
In this particular case, we have escalated it to legal. And, yes, if we
have different levels of unwelcome (and we do), David's characterization
as him being "remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt.
Block on sight, revert on sight.
That has appeared to be the interim solution.
Is it possible to still allow access? Perhaps, there is a vague idea I
can share. I don't side either way, but I do see a desire to preserve a
pure open content environment.
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content
structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away
from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Do you wonder if some users test Wikipedia's ability to stay open
content as an advertisement plot to toss mud. If someone builds a system
that can support a greater purity in open content, what does that do to
The escalated attempts may also not be an advertisement, but it may be a
way to encourage censorship beyond Wikipedia's control. I look on the
news, and I see how there are stories about censorship of individuals in
certain countries, and this particular idea strikes me to have reason
It seems applicable that an encyclopedia could include this behavior.
The encyclopedia is about knowledge, so is there a limit on what
knowledge the encyclopedia includes? In particular, this is directed at
the knowledge on human behavior. This is where I intended to leave the
idea vague. It was just substantially important to be aware of such
issues, as I sent this message.