[WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

[Tim Starling]

"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote in message
news:8v5NnLKSpVB at erik_moeller...
> Vicki-
> > That power is supposed to be used only to enforce an already-existing
> > ban: it was created to deal with Michael's endless aliases and can
> > reasonably be used in any similar situation. It doesn't mean that any
> > sysop--of whom, as you note, there are many--can exclude someone
> > from Wikipedia. That way lies instability at best.
>
> It was always allowed for developers to ban signed in users in cases of
> obvious vandalism. Now that sysops have the same ability, I see no reason
> why it should remain limited to people such as myself.

This represents a significant jump in the power wielded by sysops over other
users. Deletion, IP blocking and page protection are insignificant compared
to the ability to effectively block any non-sysop. I was afraid my software
feature might incite a policy change like this, so I made sure my policy
statement was carefully worded. In hindsight, I'm not particularly surprised
Eloquence chose to ignore it.

Eloquence obviously has a different idea of "simple vandalism" than I do. RK
got angry, he lashed out at a few users. He didn't replace the contents of
an article with "poo poo". I hope Jimbo takes this opportunity to clarify
the definition of the term.

Repeat vandalism probably could have been prevented by protecting the user
pages involved. Instead of merely dealing with the effects of RK's actions,
Eloquence was able to take retributive action. I strongly believe that
sysops should not be capable of punishing other users in this way. Threats
of such actions could greatly increase the perception of a power structure;
a pecking order.

-- Tim Starling (still theoretically on holiday)