On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:56:05 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Well, then it's equivalent to "never ban users". Do we want a policy of "never ban users"?
I would actually support that... I think the concept of banning (as opposed to blocking) is not particularly compatible with the principles on which Wikipedia is supposedly run. Blocking is a pragmatic move to attempt to stop (or at least put a speed bump in front of) sprees of vandalism or other abuse or disruption, whether caused by people being evil, insane, trollish, immature, angry, or drunk. Since some of these conditions are capable of going away when the person involved calms down, sobers up, reforms, matures, etc., there's no need for a permanent judgment against the person involved if they're no longer doing whatever was causing problems before. Banning is an attempt to impose a "crime and punishment" model that does not fit comfortably into Wikipedia policy. It's taken to excessive extremes by some fire-breathing admins who insist that any ideas that can be seen as originating with a banned user need to be vigorously suppressed even when a user in good standing suggests them.