On 8/23/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)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(a)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)