On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:37:03 -0500
joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com>om>:
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.