Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
|Oh, please no. Agree completely.
The dangers are more salient than the benefits. We can afford to lose any number of users to exasperation with vandals and trolls. What we can not afford is to create (even with the best of intentions) a insular culture of obeisance and initiatory progression through the ranks. Sysophood is already too often withheld from unpopular users(/users holding unpopular views). Openness is the jewel of wikipedia, and it should be protected at nearly any cost.
Also agree. People do vote for political reasons. I can see the start of political camps forming in Wikipedia which worries me. There is also a fair amount of obedience to sysops which is wrong as well. I guess these are the dynamics of groups.
I understand the will to prevent useful users from leaving in frustration, but we must be more concerned about the whole of wikipedia, than any one, or even several users. "The law created before me, shall outlast me." 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.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
It's far too open to abuse. There is an element of popularity contest about it. No-one seems to object to banning unpopular users.
The truth is, I don't trust some sysops not to ban people for political reasons, or to ban people they've previously been fighting with. Therefore a definite no.
Caroline / Secretlondon