On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:55:19 -0800, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a firm believer in the principle that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong to the individuals who live with the consequences. If another editor is harassed in real life, I respect that editor's confidentiality and choices. My responsibility as an editor and an administrator includes seeing to it that Wikipedia does not continue to be a platform for harassment in that situation. Hence, I follow up on banning the sockpuppets and closing whatever loopholes the harasser and his or her confederates attempt to exploit. Most of the time, quiet and efficient deflection is sufficient to end the problem.
Yes. And sometimes, at present, this is then reverted with "how dare you suppress this! censorship!"
We could all do with a bit more AGF here. Some people give a very good impression of assuming that any removal of any link is motivated by a desire to censor legitimate criticism. Some admins think that this makes the people who stir up such drama *evil*. I don't think either of these views is productive. But neither do I think we should tolerate arguments based on points of non-existent principle (e.g. free speech) when an explanation has been made in pragmatic and specific terms (e.g. offsite harassment, banned users advocating content changes in offsite forums). Wikipedia is not a free speech zone and not anarchy either.
If anyone would like to propose a policy specifically allowing banned users to contribute to Wikipedia by posting their opinions in external venues, then we can see what the community thinks about that.
Guy (JzG)