Hi!
I am a little annoyed by Martin's recent antics, regarding the unblocking of
vandals, not to mention his defense of the most obvious cases of extreme
vandalism (the Zog incident comes to mind). It is very difficult to ban someone on
Wikipedia--in fact, the number of permanently banned users I know of is just
six (HJ, Ark, Lir, Michael, DW, Zog, some of whom had various incarnations).
The ability to block an IP (and not a user name) is used to prevent kids from
adding grafitti to the site. In most cases, it is effective, and those vandals
disappear once it becomes more challenging to edit. It is not some instance of
eternal damnation. If the person apologizes and begins to really contribute,
they are welcomed back. Even in the serious bans above, people have been told
that if they reform their behaviors they can return and continue to contribute.
Discuss it with Jimbo and they will be welcomed back. Most don't because they
have no interest in coming back.
Wikipedia is a project with a stated objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its
objective is not to create an ideal democratic society a la Martin's
perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where anyone can put any crap they want
in the name of free speech. It is a place that works best by consensus and
compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this must be the policy, come h
ell or high water. That is why I was opposed to making a final decision on the
date format and spelling policies. Look how much time that wasted from the
overriding goal, when a compromise of allowing people to do what they want seemed
to be working fine for the most part. Unfortunately, it was Martin pushing
that finalizing agenda again.
The end result of all this is that some of the serious long term contributors
have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most prolific Wikipedians and a real
defender of the project against vandalism. While Martin is certainly prolific
on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work
is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and most of the rest on
contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the fires of dispute.
What I would like to see are some solid contributions--an article culled out
of a Talk page does not count---before wasting our time with the Vandal
Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made a sysop whether it was to police
it over the rest of us or to further the goal of creating an encyclopedia.
Danny