[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Criteria for banning

[Toby Bartels]

[Moving to <wikipedia-l> since Jimmy's pronouncements are of a general nature,
including his reaction to offensive user names.]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>TMC has argued that
>changing his name is tantamount to the use of force against him.  This
>argument is stupid, because he has no property interest in his
>username,

*gag*  Right-libertarian ideology!  *choke*  ^_^

In case anybody else finds the "property interest" angle odd,
let me note that I, a complete nonbeliever in the legitimacy of
any notion of property rights, agree that TMC's argument is stupid,
because his name is not him.

As it happens, I even disagree with the decision to change his name,
but I *still* think that the <force> argument is stupid.

>For ip addresses, anonymous contributions, we should continue our
>policy of banning them for simple vandalism at the slightest
>provocation.

At the slightest provocation?
Note that according to [[en:Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress]],
an isolated instance of text deletion, for instance, is not vandalism.
So the slightest provocation that qualifies as vandalism,
but not the slightest provocation that might be so interpreted
if the interpretation as vandalism is incorrect by our policy.
(This is ultimately just what Jimmy's text above says,
but I wanted to clarify.)


-- Toby