Jimmy Wales wrote:
Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
[snip]
In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by creating tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia standpoint. Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me", but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy.
I'd like to hear Cunctator weigh in on this topic. He's probably our current best "conscience" on such matters, in the sense that he's very opposed to cabalism, and clearly sees the risk.
To me, the risk is two fold. First, there's the possibility of the public tirades against our allegedly exclusionary policies, etc. But second, there's the danger that we go down a slipperly slope and start banning people for more and more minor infractions.
I have to admit I missed most of the 24 stuff since I was actually doing stuff other than Wikipedia for a while, so I'm not entirely sure what people are talking about. I saw the stuff labeled as (24) on meta, which seems to be intelligently motivated but written in a way that's guaranteed to antagonize/confuse people.
What did 24 do on wikipedia.com?
I really don't think people need to even consider banning 24. If I hadn't read all these posts on the mailing list or scanned meta, I wouldn't even have known such a person existed.
But again, I really have no idea what the scale of 24's actions are. Though perhaps that should be taken as an indication that the community response was already sufficient in assimilating 24's contributions.
--tc