From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
On 10/12/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
We can sympathize more, of course, but we need
to maintain one standard for all.
What worries me here is that we patently *don't*. Should we ever
block an editor who's clearly demonstrating good faith, is not
violating any policy of Wikipedia, but isn't complying absolutely 100%
with all the guidelines? Of course not, you say, that's absurd, we'd
never do such a thing.
But this is precisely what was done to Maoririder twice within one
week of his arriving here.
Why does it happen? What unacknowledged bit of vindictiveness
existing in the human spirit enabled this to be done by people who
told themselves that they were doing so for the best of motives?
It all depends on how disruptive their activities are. To begin with, "good
faith" is necessary, but certainly not sufficient. To make the point in an
extreme way, suicide bombers also carry out their acts in "good faith".
Moreover, Wikipedia is a community, and behaviour that veers too far from
accepted norms will have a strong negative impact on other community
members. If the overall net impact of an editor's activities are
significantly negative, then this must be ameliorated in some way. The
kinds of behaviours that Maoririder was exhibiting may not seem serious to
you; to others, they may seem far more detrimental than, for example,
reverting articles (which is also not violating any Wikipedia policies),
something you have repeatedly stated is absolutely unacceptable to you.
Jay.