On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
My point is that better ways can be found, and have already been found, and more will be found in the future.
Sure. I agree that in many cases, in the huge, vast majority of cases where we encounter people we might consider to be "problem users," there are much better ways than banning.
This means that what we just got done reaffirming, that we should sometimes kick problem members out, is not the wise way.
But goddammit Jimbo, yes it most certainly is. Sometimes you gotta use a nice big flyswatter and crush the wasp before it causes any further ruckus. We know this already, from experience.
You have to use the flyswatter and crush the wasp *if that's the only tool you have*. If ways can be found to get the wasp to agree to leave, with less fighting and fussing, then that's better for us.
I'm not disagreeing with that in the least.
The point is that you had agreed that sometimes we gotta ban people. You very kindly (and I *really* appreciate that) articulated principles we should follow in banning. Then in this post you basically said that the wise way is another way.
Well, not always. We need to stress *that* just as well.
So, yes, it's true and it's important to say that we should encourage people with kindness and gratitude for participating. But I think it was important to stress that sometimes, banning is necessary--it's important to stresss that particularly *in response to* the people I was calling (rightly or wrongly) "anarchists."
That's all I want. The rest, I agree with. In fact, I agree that we should always be slow and public in banning signed-in users for being difficult; we should be lenient and make an attempt to understand legitimate beefs. Those have always been views, and they haven't changed.
The threat of ultimate reprisal *unfortunately* has to be there, though, or the community will fall apart.
Larry