On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:48:44 -0500, Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Our
policies are formulated in terms of behaviours, and we shouldn't be
banning people who comply with the policies and norms of the project
because we don't like the motivation behind their behaviour.
I disagree. Let's not forget that we are here to write an encylopedia.
Our policies are a means to that end. Anyone here who is not trying to
write an encylopedia shouldn't be put up with. We are not an
experiment in social anarchy. I'm all for not biting newbies, I'm all
for not allowing admins to block people for emotional reasons, or to
win an edit war. I'm all for bending over backwards to accomodate
anyone who is here in good faith even if they are a complete jerk,
idiot, or a combination of both. But if they are not here in good
faith. if they are not trying to write an encylopedia, then let's deal
with 'em.
If a
troll finds away to get attention and to be
provocative without
violating our policies, then we should reconsider our policies. We
shouldn't be banning people simply because they are thought to be
trolls.
Why not? I mean I know there is a danger of someone being blocked who
is not trolling, but there are plenty of admins around to undo an
overzelous block. We should of course try to educate editors before
blocking them, we should be very careful not to block people who have
a different view than us, but in cases like this, where there is no
doubt that a user is a troll, then why not block them?
Concerning, RT's behaviours in this instance, what is wrong with them.
In fact, members of Wikipedia are routinely monitored by
administrators and other members. There is nothing wrong with it.
If A is working on an article and notices that B's edits are
questionable (by A's lights), it seems fine with me if A checks other
articles that B has worked on, or is working on, to see if he is
propagating his supposed errors into other articles. I don't see
anything wrong with that, although no doubt B might find it quite
annoying to have someone following him around.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with checking other people's edits.
I've checked plenty of people's edits in the past. I'm sure we all
have, and I'm sure plenty of people have checked mine. What I haven't
done, is stalk people. I haven't edited every article they edit, just
after them, to let them know I am watching them. He said he noticed
the articles needed improving. He's lying. We all know he's lying.
He's trying to provoke RickK into doing something stupid.
As long as A's edits
are within policy, I don't see that there is any Wikipedia policy that
is being violated. Indeed, if B is indeed a "POV-warrior", then A's
behaviour might well be hailed as a service to the community.
That's not what is happening here. The user was stalking, not checking edits.
Who
decides who can monitor whom? Are administrators
immune from being
monitored?
Nope. But he wasn't monitoring, he was stalking. He was not acting in
good faith.
The solution, as with all trolls is "Do not feed the trolls". In
other words, ignore him.
If we did that, we would be saying "it's ok to stalk people"
An administrator, above all, must be able to
do this, because trolls will try to provoke administrators as a
favorite target, knowing that provoking an over-reaction from an
administrator is the best way to cause dissension and get attention.
So let's not argue. Let's all agree that TRT is a troll, is not acting
in good faith, is not valuable to wikipedia and block him.
So, I repeat: ignore him.
What do we do in the meantime if RickK loses it and decides to leave?
We can't ignore him. SDo let's block him instead.
Theresa