On Dec 26, 2007 3:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Because nobody is supposed to commit abuse. If you allow banned users to edit as long as they don't commit abuse, that's equivalent to allowing banned users to edit, period.
And as long as they go on like that, what's the problem?
Well, then it's equivalent to "never ban users". Do we want a policy of "never ban users"?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reading WP:BAN, it's interesting to note it doesn't actually say ''why'' we can/should/do ban people, although it implies "disruptive behaviour" is the cause of bans (which I would say is generally true). In comparison with blocking, we can probably infer that bans, like blocks, are "preventative, not punitive", especially given that many bans are of temporary duration (ArbCom likes months and years, neh?). In most if not all cases (and I do have one in mind that's probably contrary) banned users that we believed would no longer be disruptive would get unbanned. In this paradigm, deleting old contributions of banned users that are nondisruptive is unnecessary and uncalled for, one might readily conclud.
In short, we ban people because they're a hinderance to the task of making an encyclopaedia. There's no reason to undo anything they've done that isn't such a hinderance, and there's no reason not to let them return if we believe they'll no longer be disruptive (although this can be hard to evaluate).
Cheers WilyD