On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I would like to say that the primary goal of wikipedia is not a to be a social experiment, but to build an encyclopedia. I am a strong (very strong) supporter of due process when it comes to good faith regular contributers, but in this case we all know what kind of a guy this is. He will not help build an encyclopedia, therefore he should be blocked, regardless of his crimes on the wiki itself. There are no absolute laws on wikipedia, and I think this is a valid use of WP:IAR
I strongly disagree. You cannot assume he will not help build an encyclopedia because you think you "know what kind of a guy this is". He arguably already has helped build an encyclopedia. I think all of his edits were made in good faith so that even by your criterion he deserves due process.
I'm also sure Rachel acted in good faith by banning him. But since it has since become clear that there is no consensus for this ban I think it should be lifted. I would be fine with an alternative remedy - a stern warning / RfC / RfA / mentorship etc.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Exactly, the smart thing to do is encourage these guys to maintain a single account, keep an eye on them, giving neutral or friendly advice if it comes up, and taking them to task for policy violations when needed. Thats what a respectable, open project like this is ment to do.You don't beat Nazi's with their own methods. Excluding others from discussion based on politics or creed is exactly what they'd do, and exactly what I won't. If nothing else it violates most of our foundation issues, esp. NPOV.
Jack (Sam Spade)