On 10/25/02 1:12 PM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" lsanger@nupedia.com wrote:
<snip
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define those behaviors.
Basically, we shouldn't.
OK, that's news. Virtually everyone else on Wikipedia disagrees with you.
I think that most people would agree that in an ideal situation, banning would be unnecessary. I think that some people
But it's nice that you agree with me that it was a list of difficult behaviors, and that you were mistaken about that.
?
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought we should ban 24.
If you don't want to understand what I'm saying, then there's not much point in trying to explain.
Could you please avoid twisting my words around? It's an awful habit.
Couldn't agree more.
I *said*: I don't read MeatballWiki, etc. This doesn't mean that I don't want to understand your view. I just think it's unreasonable for you to ask us to go to MeatballWiki to learn what you mean. :-) You disagree? We *should* all go there, because you start using words defined there?
You said "I don't know if that's what 'avoiding CommunityExile' means, and I don't care." which is equivalent to "I don't care that I don't know what [what you're saying] means", which I interpreted as "I don't want to understand what you're saying".
Hardly twisting words around.
I appreciate that you're specifically saying that you don't want to understand what I'm saying, if to understand you need to visit MeatballWiki.
I do think that's unreasonable.
But I'll continue for the benefit of others: I think that ideally we should never have to ban anyone. I didn't think we should ban 24. I didn't strongly think we should *not* ban 24, either. It was a push, given the circumstances.
No, Cunc, that's not what I remember. You said we should ban 24. You were in favor of banning him. Please don't make us go find the original posts...
Let me.
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001892.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001899.html http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001905.html
And you still haven't given any good reasons, on this list, for a total ban on banning.
See WikipediAhimsa.
<snip>
I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Just to raise your awareness: you granted me "reasonableness and modesty". That's certainly praise, if faint.
Just to raise your awareness: ;-) You mean you think I meant it with no sarcasm or facetiousness at all?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, yes.