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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2004 17:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Mark
Richards
<marich712000(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs