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. 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.
If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is just stupid.
Let's get a grip on reality, please.