Quoting Skyring skyring@gmail.com:
On Dec 4, 2007 12:13 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com:
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box -
does
anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like
the
Arb elections?
No, The vast majority of banned users are headaches enough without letting them vote in ArbCom elections. We already see people voting oppose to arbitrators who were involved in proposals against non-banned people. We don't need to further encourage that sort of thing. I find that unfortunate because I suspect that your votes would be interesting in this election (and more selfishly I suspect you might vote for me) but exceptions cannot be made for this sort of thing.
So much for Wikipedia as even a faint shadow of democracy.
We've been over this before. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Wikipedia is an attempt to build a user-editable free encyclopedia. Furthermore, many democracies do not let felons vote, and even more do not let prisoners vote. So not letting banned users vote isn't exactly the most undemocratic thing anyways.
Let's cut the crap about voting and just have Jimbo appoint anybody he likes. Who cares if banned users vote? They aren't damaging the encyclopaedia by participating in votes. And if their views are extreme, then may I suggest that they will also be very much in the minority.
Really? Do you realize how many users have been banned? The signal to noise ratio if banned users were allowed to vote would be even worse than it is now. As to Jimbo thing- we are trying to run things by consensus, that's a fundamental part of how we attempt to do things, and simply put, banned users aren't part of the consensus-forming community (just as the prisoners and felons are not part of the democratic constituency). Furthermore, Jimbo is very busy and has other things to do. But yes, at some level the ArbCom elections are the community advising Jimbo who we want on ArbCom. He tinkers with those results occasionally, but he would face an uproar if he ignored them. Think of it as closer to how the US President is supposed to make appointees with the "advice and consent of the Senate" (only with the President paying a lot more attention to the advice part).
If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is just stupid.
Let's get a grip on reality, please.
Do you want Amorrow to be undoing vandalism? Be realistic here. The vast majority of banned users will not be nearly as productive or helpful in this regard as PM would be (and indeed, that's a reason I really am not convinced that his ban makes sense) but extreme cases aren't useful test cases. Banned users as a group are people who we have decided having around does more harm than good as editors. That doesn't mean they can't contribute if they see something helpful, they just need to do so more indirectly. I've worked with banned users in the past (especially ones who are notable people who have concerns about their articles or organizations they are associated with) and will continue to do so. They have many avenues to help the project. Personally, I find continuing to help in a general sense (as PM wants to) a bit odd. If I were banned, I doubt I'd have the altruism or loyalty to wish to continue contributing to a project after that. But apparently many banned users feel differently.