I don't care if Lir is banned or not, I just wish that she would be civil.  I have NEVER said that I would refuse to accept "slave trader" as Columbus's occupation, I only said that I would accept it if Lir would give us some proof, something which she refuses to do.

Zoe

 Stephen Gilbert <canuck_in_korea2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you Larry. That sums up my feelings on bans
nicely.

Stephen G.

--- Larry Sanger wrote:
> I would like to weigh in here to say that I'm just
> slightly disturbed that
> we are getting into the habit of publicly proposing,
> on this list, to use
> the banning power to settle acrimonious edit wars.
> I've noticed this in
> the case of Lir and of DW. When Jimbo and I were
> the only ones who had
> the authority to ban people, we never used it for
> this purpose, or at
> least, I can't remember a single case. This is the
> first time I recall
> anyone proposing to ban someone for *one hour* so
> that the person could
> "cool off." This is the first I've heard of
> "cooling people off" as a
> reason to *ban* them for any length of time.
>
> If I could see immediately that Lir were simply a
> *vandal*, I could
> understand. But I do not see that Lir is simply a
> vandal, whatever
> his/her merits.
>
> Like everybody, I totally understand :-) the
> frustration involved in
> working with people I regard as unreasonable,
> difficult, and even
> trollish. But banning them isn't the way that, up
> until just the last
> month or two, we have dealt with them.
>
> Let me be clear here (it's so easy to be
> misunderstood): on the one hand,
> I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> outright banning an IP
> number (if it's stable) or perhaps, temporarily, a
> block of IP numbers, if
> it's perfectly clear that the person being banned is
> just a vandal. On
> the other hand, I do not think we should ban people
> who appear to be
> making a good faith effort to contribute, unless we
> have gone through a
> long public process and ensured that the bar is set
> very high.
>
> In particular, we do not ban people for merely
> failing to follow the
> "rules," even rules like [[netiquette]]. At least
> part of the point of
> making the first rule "ignore all rules," I thought,
> is the notion that we
> all understand that we aren't going to *enforce*
> these rules except in the
> most egregious cases, which Lir and DW aren't, as
> far as I can tell. For
> non-vandals, the bar has to be set really, really
> high, I think.
>
> --Larry
>
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go
> here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l