On Dec 4, 2007 1:53 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote: > This is the classic troll wedge. Some people will say "they're banned,
we want nothing to do with them". Others will say "they're not bothering me, let them stay". There will always be a line. If we allow them to revert vandalism, then they will want to be able to correct typos... (In general, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But in my experience, >
this slope genuinely is slippery.) Actually, you don't even have to go for the slippery slope argument. Rewind back to "Some people will say 'they're banned, we want nothing to do with them'. Others will say 'they're not bothering me, let them stay'." Hey presto, we're wasting time arguing on behalf of a banned troll, instead of doing something productive, and -- the troll has trolled us into doing it.
Do you see restoring vandalism as productive, just because a banned user reverted vandalism and "banned is banned"?
I don't. I see it is harming the encyclopaedia, If a banned user reverts vandalism, corrects typos and makes productive edits, then I'm all for it.
And just how does a banned user do anything on-wiki anyway? Obviously it would have to be done as an anon or under a new account. Seems to me that you'd have to use CheckUser to uncover the banned user. Making a CheckUser request on reverted vandalism edits strikes me as the pointless action of a defective mind.
There's more meat to the argument that banned users shouldn't vote in ArbCom elections, BTW, thanks for those who assured me that just because ArbCom elections involve voting, it isn't democracy. Not even "a faint shadow of democracy". Yeah, right.
Banned users (and again, I point out that CheckUser would be needed to uncover them) voting in ArbCom elections isn't a threat. Not unless their views were so extreme as to be easily distinguishable from normal editors, and they were a majority. Remember that each editor gets multiple votes - one for each candidate - so it's not a matter of banned users (or any other category of voter) concentrating their votes somewhere. Can't be done.
Besides which, Jimbo, in his role as head of state, isn't going to stand for anything that topples the machinery of government to the detriment of the project. Rampaging rogue Arbcoms would be swiftly booted off, regardless of whether they were elected legitimately or not.