On 10/12/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
we should be nicer in general, who cares what
postulated disability
other editors might have.
I very infrequently "me too", but this is well worth repeating.
The sad thing about this affair is that everybody involved, right down
to those instituting blocks "to enforce guidelines", seems to have
taken these extreme and sometimes nonsensically harsh measures out of
the purest of motives. They clearly felt that it was necessary to
protect the wiki from "disruption" by people who produced lots of
short stubs, or wrote not very good articles about anal sex in Brazil.
There's something almost Milgramesque about the whole affair. Would
they have behaved in such a needlessly brutal manner towards a random
weirdly acting stranger in another context?