Thomas Dalton wrote:
For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding that the person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging.
I don't think that's quite correct. Everybody acts foolishly now and then, but immediately judging them a fool is indeed prejudicial.
I've been a rabid anti-spammer since before the web existed, so these days I have a pretty short fuse on the topic. But I still try hard to keep in mind that the first time somebody spams, they rarely know that it's bad.
I have talked to a shockingly large number of well-meaning small business owners who believed the promotional flyer for the bulk mail package they bought. Until they have done it repeatedly or after warning, I don't think of them as spammers so much as people who have spammed. They were just trying to promote their business in a way that seemed reasonable given their lack of knowledge.
You don't like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will get them blocked and just block them without warning?
I don't like threats. I do like explanations. I think the difference is Wikipedia's secret sauce: the assumption of good faith.
Not being very friendly to spammers and vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
It depends on how you count the costs.
I think being actively unfriendly can get somebody's dander up. Some of those people will become more persistent, or more sneaky. Some will decide to get even. Many, because they still don't understand quite what the problem is, will tell people how horrible Wikipedia is. Or just take it out on their dogs.
On the other hand, people who feel they have been fairly treated (that is, not as fools but as people who have unintentionally done something foolish) have less incentive to take revenge. Perhaps now that they've edited, they'll add something. Maybe they'll tell colleagues why they shouldn't try to market themselves via Wikipedia. And it could they'll even join us in tidying things up.
William