On 3 Jun 2007 at 17:11:38 -0500, "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
[[User:Ptmccain]] seems to be another victim of this.
Dan, with respect, I'd advise you to review all the diffs carefully before posting further. It will take you awhile, but you'll see for yourself that what you're saying is demonstrably false and misleading.
I've already apologized for my earlier confrontational tone and failure to assume good faith. I'll try from now on to stick to facts and logical opinions, not assumptions and grudges.
Nevertheless, and even after looking at more materials on that particular user, I still think his permanent ban was an overreaction. Yes, he made some mistakes (in some ways similarly to the user that's on self-RFC now), but he's also done lots of productive contributions (including contributing many freely-licensed images), and was clearly not a troll or a sockpuppet. He's just one of several users who wandered into a heated dispute and ended up touching the third rail of Wikipedia politics, which is to do anything that can (by assuming bad faith) be construed as being on "the same side" as the banned troll WordBomb. If you assume good faith instead, his actions (which included restoring a set of talk comments that included not only a message from a sockpuppet of the banned user, but also a response from Fred Bauder that seemed supportive of that user's claims in this instance... so it can easily be construed as constituting an admin's warning which is improper to remove from a talk page) had a reasonable explanation that didn't necessarily involve enabling trolling.
Even an evil troll can be right sometimes, and it's wrong to kill the messenger who points that out.
On 6/3/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 3 Jun 2007 at 17:11:38 -0500, "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
[[User:Ptmccain]] seems to be another victim of this.
Dan, with respect, I'd advise you to review all the diffs carefully before posting further. It will take you awhile, but you'll see for yourself that what you're saying is demonstrably false and misleading.
I've already apologized for my earlier confrontational tone and failure to assume good faith. I'll try from now on to stick to facts and logical opinions, not assumptions and grudges.
Thank you.
Nevertheless, and even after looking at more materials on that particular user, I still think his permanent ban was an overreaction.
He was very disruptive. Talk pages he posted on were regularly full of personal attacks. He tried to out me several times (he believes I'm User:Danny). There were lots of WP:POINTs, such as, when asked for a citation for an edit, going to other articles the requester had edited and peppering them with a dozen or more fact tags (for things like Auschwitz being an extermination camp). He was only banned after many, many warnings. Even the editors who initially supported his edits ending up distancing themselves from him.