"But some people are just not suitable for editing here, and that's just a simple brute fact." --Jimbo
Then Jimbo, I'd like to ask you the same question I asked earlier - just what does someone have to do to be banned? Drive multiple useful contributors away? (Been there - Evercat and Finlay) Harass other users (Done that) Convince virtually the entire community to ban you? (Yep) Reject all advice to follow the rules of the community (Again, yes).
Where do you draw the line between someone who says he'll change from someone who actually will? When do 'silly things' like hard evidence and overwhelming community opinion come into play?
--Mark Pellegrini User:Raul654
mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
"But some people are just not suitable for editing here, and that's just a simple brute fact." --Jimbo
Then Jimbo, I'd like to ask you the same question I asked earlier - just what does someone have to do to be banned
Well, we have several examples of people who have been banned, and several more are well on the way.
Where do you draw the line between someone who says he'll change from someone who actually will? When do 'silly things' like hard evidence and overwhelming community opinion come into play?
Please don't put quotes like that into questions that might lead people to believe that *I* have said that hard evidence and overwhelming community opinion are "silly things". I most emphatically do not think that.
I left a note for Plautus on 22:59, 25 Feb 2004. Ed expressed hope before that. Right now I'll review everything since then and if I determine that mediation isn't working, I'll refer this to the arbitration committee. If I determine that he's too annoying, I'll do a temp-ban myself, and take the heat for it.
--Jimbo