Ban him or not on the merits of his edits. If he is
adding crap, revert it, if he keeps introducing it,
ban him for it. The name is an irrelevant distraction
from the important thing, which is "Are his edits
contributing towards building an encyclopdia".
Mark
--- John Robinson <john(a)freeq.com> wrote:
I respect what the Arbitration Committee is trying
to do, but I have
a distinct lack of respect about the way they're
going about it.
User JRR Trollkien (who, it is increasingly clear,
is either a
reincarnation of a previously permanently-banned
user, or so close to
him as not to make a difference) was blocked by an
administrator
before he had made 20 edits. He has now racked up
1500, which will
someday have to be gone through, each one, in an
effort to remove the
introduced crap, due in large part to the fact that
it has taken:
a) over a month to even get the Arbitration
Committee to accept this case;
b) two months and counting while it's been sitting
in Arbitration
Committee being mulled over;
c) at least a month of which was caused by some sort
of crazy
departure from the case itself ("JRR Trollkien is an
offensive name".
Where did that come from? Why was that even put
forth?)
The end effect of the Arbitration Committee so far
is that virtually
no users have been blocked (with the notable
exception of Wik, who
should have been blocked almost a *year* ago
anyway). It would be an
understatement to say that I'm not pleased with
current affairs.
Several other valuable users have left because of
this.
The end effect is that serious contributors are
leaving this place to
let the rest of us play with the trolls. All due to
an apparent
distinct inability to use common sense.>
_______________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/