Earlier: "...The spammers and blatant vandals are unlikely to be subscribed in the first place..."
Peter Blaise responds: Are we talkin' 'bout different things?
I'm talkin' 'bout moderating without banning on this list-serve, NOT Wikipedia.
On 19/09/2007, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Earlier: "...The spammers and blatant vandals are unlikely to be subscribed in the first place..."
Peter Blaise responds: Are we talkin' 'bout different things?
I'm talkin' 'bout moderating without banning on this list-serve, NOT Wikipedia.
I don't know what that person was talking about, but I'm talking about people banned from Wikipaedia who may be concerned about the reputations of their usernames, whether it be their real names or long standing pseudonyms.
I am saying that attempting to appeal may seriously harm their reputations, regardless of whether or not they were an asset or a detriment to the Wikipaedia. (Note the past tense. 1. Banned users aren't supposed to edit, so there should be no present tense. 2. Even if allowed to edit, they may be so upset about what Wikipaedia put them through that even if they were assets before, they might not be any more.)
I am saying that Wikipaedia will attack them, and their best chance of getting things blanked is to try to stay out of the spotlight, don't appeal, and claim non-notability.
And I'm fairly sure a lot of banned users do at least lurk here. Hello all you banned users out there! : )
Armed Blowfish wrote:
I am saying that Wikipaedia will attack them, and their best chance of getting things blanked is to try to stay out of the spotlight, don't appeal, and claim non-notability.
Giving a Republican the benefit of the doubt, it leads to a situation not unlike the recent case of US Senator Craig. The underlying accusation seems trivial, and the kind of thing where one would not be too inclined to spend a lot of time away from home to fight a case where the specified penalties are relatively small. For others of us it comes down to how willing are we to argue a debatable parking ticket far away from home, even when the case is very winnable. There's a downside to not arguing one's case.
Ec
Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
Earlier: "...The spammers and blatant vandals are unlikely to be subscribed in the first place..."
Peter Blaise responds: Are we talkin' 'bout different things?
I'm talkin' 'bout moderating without banning on this list-serve, NOT Wikipedia.
Do the spammers and vandals care about the difference?
Ec