Hmmm. As I understood it, a ban was just that, a ban. No wiggle room. Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual should be deleted on the spot, and not reinstated?
If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned, that's another issue.
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
Hmmm. As I understood it, a ban was just that, a ban. No wiggle room. Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual should be deleted on the spot, and not reinstated?
Not as a logical consequence. Any rule to that effect would be a separate rule. I prefer to look at ideas based on their inherent merit. Judging those ideas solely on the basis of who produced them is an ad hominem argument.
It's only natural that knowing the author of certain comments will affect the degree of care with which we scrutinize a contribution. Once we have made that decision, the contents alone should influence our edits. Without some degree of flexibility our universe begins to resemble too closely something out of "Fahrenheit 451"
If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned, that's another issue.
That issue is not being disputed.
Ec
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
Hmmm. As I understood it, a ban was just that, a ban. No wiggle room. Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual should be deleted on the spot, and not reinstated?
If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned, that's another issue.
I would personally consider that at least disturbing, but more like appalling, if, say, there was a contributor that /contributed/ some nice articles, say, to things related to early quantum physics, Wolfgang Pauli etc. on the, say, Hungarian wikipedia, but for other “contributions” that were inappropriate — and the warnings about those being ignored — they had got banned, then even the actually useful and worthwile articles would have to be deleted, just because the person is incapable of, say, keep themselves on the NPOV fence in regards of religion or something.
See the problem yet, or should I break it into something that is less like Schiller's periods?
At 09:22 PM 11/27/03 +0100, Ralesk wrote:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:
Hmmm. As I understood it, a ban was just that, a ban. No wiggle room. Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual should be deleted on the spot, and not reinstated? If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned, that's another issue.
I would personally consider that at least disturbing, but more like appalling, if, say, there was a contributor that /contributed/ some nice articles, say, to things related to early quantum physics, Wolfgang Pauli etc. on the, say, Hungarian wikipedia, but for other contributions that were inappropriate and the warnings about those being ignored they had got banned, then even the actually useful and worthwile articles would have to be deleted, just because the person is incapable of, say, keep themselves on the NPOV fence in regards of religion or something.
That would be disturbing, if it was our policy.
The actual policy is that if someone is banned--and that doesn't happen very often--anything they sneak onto the site *after the ban* will be reverted. Material contributed pre-ban is treated just like anything else on the Wikipedia: that is, it may be edited and rewritten, or left alone, depending on content and who happens to look at it.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org