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