[WikiEN-l] Vigilantism or due process (was: Plautus)

[Gareth Owen]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <jheiskan at welho.com> writes:

> The dangers are more salient than the benefits. We can afford to lose any
> number of users to exasperation with vandals and trolls. 

No we can't.

> What we can not afford is to create (even with the best of intentions) a
> insular culture of obeisance

You call it obeisance, I call it following the community rules and norms of
behaviour.  If you don't like the rules, campaign to have them changed but
don't tolerate the breaching of the rules.  

There are many ways to introduce new ideas into articles, without getting
involved in edit and reversion wars.

>  and initiatory progression through the ranks.

Theres no progression to sysophood, except for those with copious free time.
Its not a promotion, its a voluntary duty.  There are many, I'm sure, for whom
it holds not appeal.

> As much as it pains us all, it is _most_ important to lay down rules which
> can be justified without reference to current cases, and personages.

We have rules.  The question is, what do we do to people with no apparent
desire to work within them?  Waste man-hours attempting rehabilitation, or
prevent them from causing any more trouble.  

It strikes me that the only (partially) succesful rehabilitation of a
troublemaking user (Lir) came through a ban, rather than any "arbitration."
The addition of a layer of committees and bureaucracy has not, as far as I can
tell, achieved anything of any note.
-- 
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate