[Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban

[lcrocker at nupedia.com]

> Maybe we should revive the idea of a partial ban:
>* Contributor blocked from editing articles -- stops the edit war
>* But can still edit talk pages -- which keeps dialogue open

I proposed exactly that once, but the idea got little support.
I'm all for it, though I don't think even a complete block
really shuts down dialog.  After all, Bridget did show up here
on the list, and she's quite free to e-mail anyone (the "you're
blocked" page shows the user who blocked you, and the "e-mail
this user" function is not blocked).

But the real issue is acceptable criteria for imposing such a
block.  While we all agree that outright vandalism and obscenity
are legitimate reasons and that "point of view" and "emotional
involvement" are really bad reasons, I hold that "demonstrated
unwillingness to work with others" is a perfectly legitimate one
as well, so long as one judges this on genuine content-neutral
grounds.  Others may disagree.

Here's another thought experiment.  Suppose you are organizing
a conference to dicuss some topic, and preparing for it by hosting
a mailing list discussion.  A troublemaker appears on the list
and disrupts things.  It is discovered that the troublemaker is
in fact a bright 9-year-old. Is there any question in anyone's
mind that it would be a perfectly legitimate exercise of control
to simply drop the kid from the list and the conference, because
it's clear that a child that young doesn't yet have the maturity
or experience to effectively work with the group or understand
the deeper issues?  "Free speech" and other freedoms are marvellous
things, but such rights only apply to adults whom we can hold
responsible for their actions.

On Wikipedia, we can't see whether the troublemakers are adults
or not, so we give them the benefit of the doubt.  But some of them
probably are, in fact, children.  It wouldn't surprize me a bit to
discover that Lir is a very bright 14-year old.  Why should we
bend over backwards to give such a person presumed rights here that
even the most liberal of us wouldn't grant in real life?

And since we can't know the physical age of someone here, it is
perfectly reasonable for us to evaluate the /actual actions/ of
of contributors, and to judge whether or not they have the maturity
to work within this system. If someone acts like a 10-year-old,
they should be treated like one.  A block isn't saying "you're an
awful person" or anything--it's just saying "go to your room for
a while, the grown-ups are talking".