[Wikipedia-l] Re: Ban warning to GrahamN

Sat Sep 7 00:21:11 UTC 2002

On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 07:42:40 The Cunctator wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 17:35, Bryan Derksen wrote:
> 
> > Banning someone for being disruptive is not necessarily the top of a
> > "slippery slope" towards censorship, as long as we're careful about
> doing
> > it and keep a watchful eye on ourselves. On the other hand, letting
> > disruptive yahoos get away with everything will eventually mean that
> only
> > the disruptive yahoos stick around.
> 
> This would be a valid argument if the only way to prevent
> "disruptive yahoos" from "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban
> them.
> 
> But it isn't. Rather, merciless editing and ignoring personality has
> worked every time so far.
> 
> We already have sufficient policies in place for banning people. The
> harm in expanding them would outweigh the benefits.
> 

That policy has worked, after a fashion, but it bears substantial costs -
like creating an environment that some people just can't cope with,
where we constantly have to argue with kooks, nutters, and other
assorted people who just don't understand when they're either a)
totally wrong, or b) that they're going to have to accept that
there are other opinions besides theirs which, often, are far more
widely held, and c) don't know how to have a civilized discussion
about it without ad hominem attacks, and d) can't be taught.

If people can't debate issues sensibly for whatever reason
(and that includes not
resorting to accusations of "this person is an anti-foobar or
a burglephobe and thus should be banned" at the drop of a hat)
then they need to be told to behave.  If they can't do that, they
are getting in the road of the goal and should be dealt with
so the rest of us can get back to work.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel	                           rgmerk at mira.net

Node FLY on Melbourne Wireless : http://www.wireless.org.au
------------------------------------------------------------