lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:

Vandalism isn't the /only/ possible reason to ban someone. We banned Mr. "24" because he consistently refused to work with the community, undermined our goals, and made personal attacks.

Interesting. I was unaware that 24 was banned. How was this decided?

Was there a decision made to not ban me (mirwin)? I was attacked for merely stating my personal opinion that I did not consider "24" a troll.

I was called a nutcase because I concluded that the software engineering article was biased and erased the heavily biased content to start the article over. Lee, I, and others eventually reached an acceptable compromise on the material but I did not consider it helpful being called a nutcase to begin the negotiations/discussion on how to properly restructure the article.

I was ridiculed on various talk pages after attempting to participate constructively in "24" attempt at meta to establish a process to develop and define community mores, policies, procedures, etc.

Was the ban on "24" applied to meta as well as wikipedia?

Was there any discussion of banning others who were making personal attacks in this time frame?

As I recall grade school disciplinary actions they were typically applied to instigators or all parties. 24 alleged at one point that others were attacking him and camping on articles he originated or attempted to modify.

It is not clear to me that others were behaving towards 24 and his/her material in ways that were consistent with the published guidelines.

If Helga continues

to interfere with our job of making good articles, won't participate in our process, doesn't contribute in other ways, and eats up the time and energy of others here who /do/ contribute, then maybe banning is the right thing.

Or perhaps a new feature for non-vandals like them: being restricted to editing Talk pages only?

This is really moving into revision control. It is fundamental to the discussion "24" and a few others were attempting to stimulate at various times at meta. Apparently "24"'s antics also made him/her unpopular enough that banning or censorship was deemed appropriate rather than addressing the issue of how legitimate revision authority is established or derived in this "community".

I think it would be better long term for the wikipedia if this issue were resolved through a general mechanism that is hard for individuals, small groups, or cabals to subvert or misuse. Alternatively, the "community" could be honest up front with new people regarding who has what authority and simply must be placated to retain write access.

Perhaps a "draft" or "proposed revision" page could be added where proposed changes could be seen and revised. When a change has acquired a defined threshold of approval then it automatically occurs.

If Helga's (or 24s or mirwin's or some other unpopulist) perspective cannot attain the threshold then they would automatically remain on the draft page until rewritten to a form acceptable to sufficient others.

mirwin