chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 5:15 pm
So, this here thread is a process. By the end of it the way to proceed should become clear. How would you propose we get beyond stating “should have happened long ago” and “too harsh” in alternating reply? Or is it okay we just have two clashing opposite views forever?
This is not likely to converge. Because these are really statements about two different issues. One is whether using a link to a media file in your signature, which used to be harmless before, but since the last upgrade is aggressively replaced by embedding the media, should lead to llife-time banning. It seems most people think this too harsh. And then there are those who want CQ banned for the quality of his posting, and do not care what pretext we use for it.
It is true that CQ was a nuisance to moderate. He abused the quoting system, using the quote button to modify his postings, rather than the edit button, often double posted, posted in wrong forum sections. He was really a very devious and malicious character if he did all that on purpose. But since I never saw any motive he could have for pestering me, I have always ascribed this to general stupidity and incompetence, most likely induced by some form of substance abuse. As mentioned above, there could also be a medical explanation. I warned him that I would apply a special moderation regime to him, deleting any postings in a wrong section without further notice, rather than trying to move them where they belonged. That kept the amount of moderation time I had to spend on him to a bearable level.