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

[u/n - adrianm]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500
  joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu wrote:
>Quoting Relata Refero <refero.relata 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.
>
>No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith 
>but just really don't
>work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We 
>should confuse bad
>faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just 
>don't work well with
>other people at all.
>
>___________

Well put.  There is a major difference between people who 
you "Just don't like" as compared to people who are 
deliberately trying to destroy the project.  

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that spammers like 
Willy on Wheels should be let on to Wikipedia, or that 
sock puppet abusers and serial vandals should be allowed 
on.  But people who are genuinely trying to do something 
good, but who have different views or are misunderstood 
somehow, should at least have some breathing room. 
 Perhaps let the ban stick for a while, but allow a 
possibility.

You are missing their knowledge otherwise.  And sometimes 
that knowledge is somewhat essential.