On Dec 2, 2007 11:04 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 10:41 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 10:02 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
What we need to cut out, before it get any worse, is banning of new users because they may become disruptive in the future, on shaky grounds that they already know the way of the land. We should be applauding those that actually RTFM as we often wish.
Other than this single block of !!, do you have any examples of when that has actually happened?
It's not the whole basis of the case, but have you looked at part of the reason given for the block and the refusal of the unblock request over this [[User:MatthewHoffman]] case Charles linked to?
Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were suggesting that people were banning users *solely* because they know the way of the land. The example you gave was a user who made nothing but disruptive edits from the very beginning.
As has been said, who cares if an account is a returning banned user / friend of WR / ...... At the end of the day, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia. If the user is not disrupting that goal, then leave them be.
I think intent goes a long away, at least in the meta namespace. Everyone who participated in the Durova arb com, which ultimately accomplished essentially nothing, wasted our time and disrupted the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Should we ban them all?
Yes, intent was implicit in what I mean. If you think "Everyone who participated in the Durova arb com" was disrupting the goal of the project, then your definition is much much wider than mine.
KTC
p.s. If you think we should ban them all, does that include everyone who has taken part in the discussion on this mailing list over this, including you? ;-)
Eh, whatever. It'd probably be a good thing to force me to be more productive with my time.