[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[Relata Refero]

On Nov 16, 2007 7:16 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2007 11:31 PM, Flameviper Velifang <theflameysnake at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring
> to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of
> "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
>
> The assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. We take it
> to be the case, but only so long as there is no evidence to show
> otherwise.
>
> After that, you need to prove good faith again.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
>


I would think the whole point of banning someone is to say that we no longer
believe, as a community, that this person can contribute effectively to the
project. Given that, it means that we are in effect assuming that any
contribution made by such a user is not made in good faith. Which is why you
have to work extra hard. It is not surprising if, given that most of us can
with some ease see that you do not regret your past action, nor do you
intend to change your motivation for editing the encyclopaedia, we do not
choose to extend the -remarkably fragile- assumption of good faith to you.
Naturally, thus, we will place you in the same category with those others -
"banned users" - to whom we do not extend that good faith.

If you want to change that, you're going about it the wrong way. You can't
expect saying that "all other banned users are bad, but I am not, because I
did nothing really wrong" is going to change it. You may expect that
accepting your past "ass-hattery" or whatever is enough, but frankly it
isn't because we'd expect much more from someone who has worn out our
willingness to extend good faith. So I'd suggest you either assume that your
time here is finally done, or, in private, ask some forgiving individuals
how to go about painstakingly recovering the community's trust. And listen
to them.

RR