Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
I object strongly to DW being called an idiot.
So do I.
It's not always easy, but I think that the good people of wikipedia should strive always for a higher plane of discussion than that of people like DW. If for no other reason than the purely practical -- if you leave me with a pristine "paper trail" that doesn't get us involved in "who started it", it's a *lot* easier for me to identify and neutralize troublemakers.
Banning is for people that load goatse or change the dates of WWII to 1836-2321. Banning is not for somebody who writes, "Columbus was a slavetrader" or "The Israelis are actively conducting genocide in Palestine". Yes, anyone with brains know those statements are absolute truth, but it takes time to learn NPOV.
Well, banning actually *is* for people who write things like that. Not if it's the first offense, because, as you say, it takes time to learn NPOV. But there are people who are disruptive because they refuse to drop their POV and "competitive" writing tactics.
Why? Why can't we all just get along? I don't see any reason we can't get along. I've obviously taken numerous steps to try and reconcile things,
But you've also taken numerous steps to alienate people further, such as evading the ban by creating a new user name, and continuing to use it even after I directly told you not to do so.
And then there's stuff like this:
Oh, I almost forgot, for about the hundreth time, plz add some simple chatrooms like even the most moronic of websites have. You can't honestly expect to go another year without even one chatroom, can you?
You're not likely to get people's attention for requests when they are phrased in such a hostile manner!
--Jimbo