On 3/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote
When someone starts from a position of "banning
the hell out of anyon"
how can that possibly be encouraging? I very much prefer to assume good
faith I know that it was Jake's idea and not yours, and please forgive
me if I wrongly interpreted your response as a support of that
attitude.
You've got my position completely wrong. I was responding to the
argument that states we shouldn't, ever, allow anyone to edit
Wikipedia for money. My comment about banning the hell out of people
who /don't/ comply was meant as a moderated version of the position
that would otherwise suggest doing the same to those who /would/
comply with the simple registration I suggested.
And I'm not talking about some "bureacracy", I'd hate to see that
happen. Just talking about a list, that anyone who's being paid to
edit should list their user account, who's paying them for it, and a
brief statement of why ("[[User:Someoneorother]] - anonymous
benefactor - To improve general quality of articles"). No "just these
fifty questions, drug test, and a background check" like RFA, no "is
the Ottoman Empire really /notable/? I never heard of it before, and I
don't like the sound of it... DELETE!" VFD-like arguments... it's not
a "candidates to be allowed". I don't think that those three pieces
of information are some onerous burden.
Believe me, I'm thoroughly against a red-tape approach... IRL, I have
to deal with McCain-Feingold day in, day out... where it can be a
crime to talk to a friend in general terms about how your day went, if
said friend's day job is with an organization you're banned from
coordinating with...
-- Jake Nelson
[[en:User:Jake Nelson]]