On 10/6/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The ArbCom also seems to take a fairly narrow view of what constitutes "abuse", in the sense that disruptive behavior -- even *massively* disruptive behavior -- is ignored if it (a) seems to sort of work out in the end, (b) can be claimed as being "for the good of Wikipedia", or (c) both.
You mean, where they consider the "disruption" was the right thing, they consider it was the right thing? Well, uh, yeah.
(If you don't mean that, be specific about what you do mean.)
No, I meant that they would overlook the disruption (which is generally not the best way of doing things, even if it happens to work out in the end) if the person responsible for it had good intentions.
This isn't necessarily consitent behavior, of course. In some cases (e.g. Anoranza) the ArbCom has decided that acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia did not justify doing so in a disruptive manner; in other cases (e.g. the various iterations of the userbox affair) the disruptive effects of certain actions were ignored because the person responsible was acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia.