On 8/23/05, Rob <gamaliel8(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The advantage to banning him now is that it prevents
subtle skewing of articles or skewing of articles on
obscure topics, both which may go unnoticed and
uncorrected.
Hardly. We are all watching him. If he's blocked what's to stop him
not logging in and editing or creating a whole host of socks and then
editing?
It also saves a lot of stress and sweat
for those editors who have to deal with him until he
inevitably gets banned for something.
Partially agree. But if he doesn't actually do anything wrong then why
is it stressfull to deal with him?
Neither of
these will be that detrimental to the project as a
whole in the long run, but they are not negligible
effects.
What really concerns me is this sort of thing
"I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in Eustace Mullins.
Mullins is a repulsive, demented antisemite. The article on him is not
balanced and nothing like NPOV, but I'm not going into bat for him."
This is Grace Note talking on Amalekite's talk page. Having nonNPOV
articles is very much to the detriment of Wikipedia. Having some
neonazis to bat for neonazi related articles is probably the only way
of achieving NPOV on those articles, as regular wikipedians may well
(Like Grace Note) be reluctant to.
Theresa
Gamaliel
Theresa Knott theresaknott at
gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 01:57:07 UTC 2005
We could ban him then. Is there any particular hurry?
Why don't we
wait until he does something wrong and then ban him?
(Note that I'm playing devils advocate here. I'm not
concerned enough
to go and unblock him)
Theresa
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l