Sure, I appreciate what you're saying - but I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs though, just that not feeding trolls is about the most effective way of reducing their impact that I've seen - this sort of thing looks like more food for trolling. Mark
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Mark Richards marich712000@yahoo.com wrote:
It seems to me that by continuing to ban, block,
hold
hearings about etc, that we are feeding trollish behavior.
Is there an alternative besides allowing them to be disruptive at will? Plaster requests for legal action all over the place? We could just revert them all without explanation and open ourselves to more accusations of being a cabal... :)
The recent banning of one user for 'disruptive edits' or something like that in particular, while I can understand the sentiment, leaves us open to a double standard - I have seen
many
other users exhibit much more disruptive edits.
The failure of other users to be censured, blocked, or have policy applied to them should directly not affect whether these users should be censured or blocked. Just because OJ Simpson got away with something doesn't mean I can use his failure to be imprisioned as a defense in a court of law. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover