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

[Ray Saintonge]

Stephen Bain 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.
You are really describing a Catch-22 situation.  If someone needs to 
prove good faith again it will best be done through his edits.  Simply 
kissing ass with a lot of hollow promises just won't do it.

Sockpuppets and proxy editing should not be viewed as wrongs by 
themselves.  They should only be viewed as sins when they are used in 
the furtherance of other wrongs.  A newly unbanned user who in the past 
has built up an inventory of sockpuppets can only too easily use the 
wrong account.  A person who assumes good faith should look a little 
more deeply when he discovers the person using the alternate account.  
If he uses that other account for a handful of innocent edits one should 
avoid jumping to the conclusion that he is somehow working underhandedly. 

We should be looking for ways to build bridges with these people, not 
looking for minimal excuses to freeze them out.

Ec