On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Far more good has come out of the "no big
deal" idea. Let's not let
a couple of bad apples spoil the atmosphere that makes Wikipedia
fun to work in. Yes, they happen to be influential apples, but there
are other solutions to this problem than crushing the attitude that
has brought Wikipedia so much good.
Consider the attitude we're supposed to hold about blocking people.
It's preventative, right? In theory, at least. However, blocking almost
always has a punitive effect, even though we are told to ignore that
aspect and only consider it a preventative tool. Same with the "no big
deal" attitude. Often, admins can make waves with controversial
deletions, discussion closings, and blockings; that's true. But
"no big deal" is the best system we have.
You have to *show* how that's the case, not just keep saying it.
You remind me of my English teacher, who took off points from my
paper because I made an "unasserted statement" in the introduction.
There is a point to introductions, I'll tell ya... ;)
Suppose that
blocking was considered punitive. Then we would have
to determine how long a vandal should sit in a corner until he learns
his lesson, or examine how many personal attacks an edit warrior made.
But thankfully, that's not the case.
Of course it's the case. That's exactly what currently happens every
day. The "blocking is never punitive" mantra is another piece of pure
ideology similar to "adminship is no big deal." Both are prescriptive,
not descriptive.
Yes, of course any block can be actually considered punitive in
retrospect. But it is incorrect to view nlocks as punitive while making
them. Prescription is not all bad if it makes human beings behave
in a way that is kinder (AGF), more respectful (CIV), and more conducive
to making a free content encyclopedia.
The scenario you paint about different people having
different
standards is what happens currently. The only problem is that there's
no culture that opposes promoting accounts who have only reverted
articles or voted in AfDs. I am proposing that we develop that culture
for all the reasons I've outlined.
If you can point to an account whose edits can only be classified as
*either* reverting vandalism or voting in AFDs, I would oppose them on
an RfA. However, no such accounts exist. Admins editing
articles and interacting on article talk are great. But if we try to
selectively channel all incoming admins into that group, other areas
will be neglected, and those that work in there (with increasing
thanklessness, a result of this "culture" that you may not realize)
with become burnt out.
I agree that abuse happens, and that we don't want
100 percent
security, and anyway it's impossible, and all the other cliches. The
question remains: do we care if one person is running six admin
accounts? Do we care if that person gets a place on ArbCom?
Gracenotes, do you care about these things?
If the answer is no, fine, let's carry on as before. If we do care,
what can reasonably be done to make it harder for someone to do that?
Yes, I'm concerned about those things. If you draft a solution, however,
please make sure that it doesn't spill over into other parts of Wikipedia
and
needlessly alter them, especially when that alteration can damage
good-faith editors. The real-life-identity solutions sounds reasonable,
although it would require some infrastructure changes. Maybe not doing
anything is the best route, because what we have now is the best
equilibrium between stopping abusive accounts and promoting editors
who will use the tools well.