Quoting u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com:
I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith.
No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really don't work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse bad faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well with other people at all.
Well put. There is a major difference between people who you "Just don't like" as compared to people who are deliberately trying to destroy the project.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that spammers like Willy on Wheels should be let on to Wikipedia, or that sock puppet abusers and serial vandals should be allowed on. But people who are genuinely trying to do something good, but who have different views or are misunderstood somehow, should at least have some breathing room. Perhaps let the ban stick for a while, but allow a possibility.
You are missing their knowledge otherwise. And sometimes that knowledge is somewhat essential.
No, that wasn't my point at all. There are many people who are completely unable to work with others and must remained banned. The point is that that holds despite the fact they are operating in good faith.