You bet I was heated up, I still am. However, after having read Tim's response and after some discussion I realized it was best to wait until Jimbo could get to the list and read the thread before continuing. Sorry for not bringing that to the list earlier.
I find it interesting though that of all the objections to banning this account I've seen here on the list and on various talk pages have been based solely on procedure. I find nothing anywhere along the lines of "this person doesn't deserved to be banned, this person's not a troll, this person's a fine contributor"; what I mainly see is "we haven't discussed it enough yet."
But we -have- discussed it, and at length, for over two weeks! And to be perfectly honest, if the blocking mechanism had been in place on September 7, and the caveats not established for its use, I would have banned this account then, when it became perfectly obvious that the person behind it was in no way interested in anything but disrupting the Wikipedia. (Maybe some recall my "hurry-up" email to the list on that date.) BuddhaInside's actions have changed not a bit since then, while we have been sitting back discussing and discussing.
Our method of ridding the system of users that are clearly out for nothing but destruction needs a serious overhaul. I understand now that the new code was implemented more or less specifically to deal with Michael's accounts. On the other hand, I've told Michael flat-out, "if you'll quit acting like that, you'll be allowed in." Realistically, there is no way to know if someone is a banned user except by their actions. If Michael were to log in under a generic AOL IP and begin editing articles in a responsible manner, we'd have to let it slide, because there is no way to know whether it was him. And if I logged in and started editing like Michael, I'd be almost immediately (and rightfully!) blocked.
The point I'm trying to make here is that we can't ban -people-, only -actions-. If someone is -acting- like a banned user, they should -be- banned, regardless of who they are, because we have no way of knowing who they are. (And of course, concessions should be made for new contributors, which BuddhaInside clearly is not.) If they then want to make another account and start acting responsibly, great. If they make another account and do the same thing, ban them again.
And as I type this, BuddhaInside continues his/her silly antics, as we continue ours. I sincerely hope it doesn't take another two weeks to come to a conclusion on this.
-Hephaestos
John Robinson wrote:
You bet I was heated up, I still am. However, after having read Tim's response and after some discussion I realized it was best to wait until Jimbo could get to the list and read the thread before continuing. Sorry for not bringing that to the list earlier.
I find it interesting though that of all the objections to banning this account I've seen here on the list and on various talk pages have been based solely on procedure. I find nothing anywhere along the lines of "this person doesn't deserved to be banned, this person's not a troll, this person's a fine contributor"; what I mainly see is "we haven't discussed it enough yet."
Procedure is important. At the same time procedure does not mean endless discussion. When a banning proposal is put to the mailing list it is often to a lot of people who have never encountered the accused. It's easy for any two people to work on very different topic areas without encountering each other in a project that's so big. If you're going to use the list to propose a ban you wan't to make sure that the facts are documented, and that you lay them out. If you don't you risk being identified as a whiner.
Ec