[WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

[Kirill Lokshin]

On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/10/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The ArbCom also seems to take a fairly narrow view of what constitutes
> > "abuse", in the sense that disruptive behavior -- even *massively*
> > disruptive behavior -- is ignored if it (a) seems to sort of work out
> > in the end, (b) can be claimed as being "for the good of Wikipedia",
> > or (c) both.
>
> You mean, where they consider the "disruption" was the right thing,
> they consider it was the right thing? Well, uh, yeah.
>
> (If you don't mean that, be specific about what you do mean.)

No, I meant that they would overlook the disruption (which is
generally not the best way of doing things, even if it happens to work
out in the end) if the person responsible for it had good intentions.

This isn't necessarily consitent behavior, of course.  In some cases
(e.g. Anoranza) the ArbCom has decided that acting in good faith to
improve the encyclopedia did not justify doing so in a disruptive
manner; in other cases (e.g. the various iterations of the userbox
affair) the disruptive effects of certain actions were ignored because
the person responsible was acting in good faith to improve the
encyclopedia.

-- 
Kirill Lokshin