[Wikipedia-l] Re: Legal challenge from Enforcer

[Erik Moeller]

Tim-

> "Enforcer" appears to be Bird, not 142.

Which would make him a banned user and justify instant re-banning. If he  
wants to engage in reasonable dialogue, that has always been possible.  
Wikipedia is not, however, a forum for trolls to publish their conspiracy  
theories or outright libel.

As your example [[Bomis]] shows, I am hardly a subservient sycophant, as  
is not a single Wikipedian I know. In fact Wikipedia is the most self- 
critical online project I have ever been part of, sometimes to the point  
of temporary paralysis. Critical dialogue on all aspects of our community  
is not simply tolerated, it is encouraged.

This openness has led some trolls to try to disrupt our community  
systematically, feeling emboldened by the occasional cry of censorship  
that echoes back from the larger community. These trolls are the people  
who would like to see Wikipedia fail, most of them because we don't (and  
cannot) allow them to publish their convulsive ravings as gospel, or  
because they want the attention that their mother or their girlfriend  
apparently didn't give them.

Can you reform someone whose goal is to destroy the very thing you are  
creating? Should you even try? I remain ambivalent on this question as I  
can't think of a single success story in that department. Even Lir, whom  
we accepted back into our community in spite of his terrible track record  
and lack of a public apology, left weeks ago, insulting the entire  
community one last time and calling several individuals "fuckwits" and  
"assholes" on their talk pages before his departure. It says a lot about  
our pain tolerance that he was not instantly banned for that, and that  
some users in fact asked him to come back. I for one am happy if he keeps  
doing whatever he's doing right now.

Regards,

Erik