--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I personally give up and say we should issue one
final warning and then test
the block user function if that warning is also
ignored.
I strongly object. Using stupid rhetoric on talk pages
is not grounds for locking someone out. Ark has made a
lot of good contributions relating to computer
security, and it's unfortunate that he doesn't play
nice with others. He also has an agenda to push. But
let's not get too ban-happy. Read on for my
alternative solution.
This person is not
at all worth loosing any valued and long time
contributor over. Wasn't the
fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature
and persistant POV stuff
Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael
Tinkler left the project?
Rather than banning the person in question, a better
option would be for many different Wikipedians to
ruthlessly edit the problem articles. There's not need
to engage the person in empty and insulting rhetoric;
simply make the changes that are necessary and
document why on the talk page. Ignore any
name-calling.
If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep
somebody like Michael, then I
say we should have some, but limited tolerance for
the Ark's of the world.
I agree. However, the ban should be an absolute last
resort. Banning people simply adds more fuel to
certain fires, namely the idea that the Wikipedia
project engages in censorship when people piss off the
almighty sysops.
It seems that Julie is the only person right now who
is trying to balance the Infanticide article. Let's
all do a little research and give her a hand. That
way, one knowledgable person isn't left to twist in
the wind by herself, and the article can't be hijacked
to push a single point of view.
Stephen G.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com