Jimmy Wales wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
This fellow was banned as User:Amorrow for vicious personal attacks and threats against other users, and again as User:Pinktulip. His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. Fairly obviously, he's *remarkably* unwelcome on anything to do with Wikipedia.
In this particular case, we have escalated it to legal. And, yes, if we have different levels of unwelcome (and we do), David's characterization as him being "remarkably" unwelcome is remarkably apt.
Block on sight, revert on sight.
That has appeared to be the interim solution.
Is it possible to still allow access? Perhaps, there is a vague idea I can share. I don't side either way, but I do see a desire to preserve a pure open content environment.
Wikipedia obviously tests how pure it can stay as an open content structure. It has, unfortunately, by the nature of blocks shimmered away from being pure. Can we change this so it can stay purely open content?
Do you wonder if some users test Wikipedia's ability to stay open content as an advertisement plot to toss mud. If someone builds a system that can support a greater purity in open content, what does that do to Wikipedia?
The escalated attempts may also not be an advertisement, but it may be a way to encourage censorship beyond Wikipedia's control. I look on the news, and I see how there are stories about censorship of individuals in certain countries, and this particular idea strikes me to have reason beyond doubt.
It seems applicable that an encyclopedia could include this behavior. The encyclopedia is about knowledge, so is there a limit on what knowledge the encyclopedia includes? In particular, this is directed at the knowledge on human behavior. This is where I intended to leave the idea vague. It was just substantially important to be aware of such issues, as I sent this message.
Respectfully, Jonathan