On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:25:57 -0500, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Except that the username makes it perfectly plain that this is a reincarnation.
Then it should be blocked as a username block, and appropriate messages sent, no?
No. A username block is for an inappropriate username. This block was for inappropriate behaviour. And to be honest I don't see a lot of point in arguing about it anyway - it's a difference which makes no difference.
Nobody was civil to this user, and nobody asked his patience or anything; they just went gung-ho attacking.
Except that the edit history shows nothing but tendentious editing, and the username strongly implies that this is a reincarnation of another (presumably banned as tendentious) editor. Blocking stops the problem behaviour, and there was no evident good editing to be lost by blocking. So arguing about it is pointless: it's a righteous block of a POV pushing vandal. And if by some miracle the problem editor repents we can always unblock. Do not forget the stress and inconvenience caused to other editors by POV-pushing vandals, or the angst caused by well-meaning editors trying hard to accommodate the views of POV-pushing vandals trying to insert ridiculously biased content. POV warriors are a plague on the project and we should cheer loudly every time we hound one out.
It's nice to assume good faith, but sometimes when yet another "brand new
user" pops up it can be asking a bit much.
It's policy.
Policy does not require us to be naive in the face of the blindingly obvious.
I disagree. I think the most common mistake is the refusal to extend good faith and the refusal to be civil in all instances.
So you say. I believe otherwise. Feel free to begin a debate on the admins' noticeboard, which is in my view the appropriate venue for philosophical debate about admin actions in the abstract.
Guy (JzG)