At 01:10 PM 6/29/2003, Ec wrote:
I very much support an approach based on kindness and courtesy, and even when some of us get carried away with our anger we can soon gain control of our emotions and go back into some kind of "normal" behaviour, Unfortunately, a few of our regulars to hold onto their perceptions of wrongdoings like bulldogs without leaving much latitude for escaping from the grind that accompanies some of these issues.
The number of our persistent problem people is surprisingly small when you discount all the multiple personalities that some bring into the subject. Reading through the unending e-mails about this handful is perhaps one of the least pleasant tasks on the mailing list. I gave up trying to read Joe Canuck's purported defence after the first few paragraphs.
There is much to be said about having a due process policy for dealing with these people, and a page set aside for each of them where anyone can see what they did, and their sins are properly documented and dated. Details of their banning, and the conditions for their return can also be there. When a newbie asks what they did that was so wrong we can always simply refer them to that page without needing to keep going over the same material again and again.
Ec
I agree 100%. Far too much time is spent defending the actions of those who combat trolls through reversion. People keep popping up asking, "Why are you reverting all this users edits?" When informed that they are banned, the next question is inevitably, "But why revert ALL their edits?". It becomes pointless to repeat the same answers time and time again. We need, as Ec suggested, a single page per vandal where all the evidence and pertinent information is located that we can use as an illustrative aid when questioned on our actions regarding the vandal.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321