On 10/25/02 1:12 PM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger(a)nupedia.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
> On
10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger(a)nupedia.com> wrote:
<snip
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult
contributors, Cunc; it is a
list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning
would be unnecessary. I think that some people
But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a
list of difficult
behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
?
(2) I
don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point
in trying to explain.
Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit.
Couldn't agree more.
I
*said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't
want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to
ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree?
We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
You said "I don't know if that's what 'avoiding CommunityExile'
means, and I
don't care." which is equivalent to "I don't care that I don't know
what
[what you're saying] means", which I interpreted as "I don't want to
understand what you're saying".
Hardly twisting words around.
I appreciate that you're specifically saying that you don't want to
understand what I'm saying, if to understand you need to visit MeatballWiki.
I do think that's unreasonable.
But I'll continue for the benefit of others:
I think that ideally we
should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I
didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push,
given the circumstances.
No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You
were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original
posts...
Let me.
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001892.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001899.html
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001905.html
And you still haven't given any good reasons, on
this list, for a total
ban on banning.
See WikipediAhimsa.
<snip>
I suppose all
this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware
of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted
me "reasonableness and modesty".
That's certainly praise, if faint.
Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean
you think I meant it with no
sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, yes.