On 8/23/05, Rob gamaliel8@yahoo.com wrote:
The advantage to banning him now is that it prevents subtle skewing of articles or skewing of articles on obscure topics, both which may go unnoticed and uncorrected.
Hardly. We are all watching him. If he's blocked what's to stop him not logging in and editing or creating a whole host of socks and then editing?
It also saves a lot of stress and sweat for those editors who have to deal with him until he inevitably gets banned for something.
Partially agree. But if he doesn't actually do anything wrong then why is it stressfull to deal with him?
Neither of these will be that detrimental to the project as a whole in the long run, but they are not negligible effects.
What really concerns me is this sort of thing
"I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in Eustace Mullins. Mullins is a repulsive, demented antisemite. The article on him is not balanced and nothing like NPOV, but I'm not going into bat for him."
This is Grace Note talking on Amalekite's talk page. Having nonNPOV articles is very much to the detriment of Wikipedia. Having some neonazis to bat for neonazi related articles is probably the only way of achieving NPOV on those articles, as regular wikipedians may well (Like Grace Note) be reluctant to.
Theresa
Gamaliel
Theresa Knott theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Aug 23 01:57:07 UTC 2005
We could ban him then. Is there any particular hurry? Why don't we wait until he does something wrong and then ban him?
(Note that I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm not concerned enough to go and unblock him)
Theresa
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l