> Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort > of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being > that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely). First off, thanks for the history lesson. No, I'm not being sarcastic, really, thanks.
> In short, the checks and balances can fail where people are > unscrupulous and/or are too vested in getting rid of a particular > editor who is not a classic vandal but something else. Good point. This actually interferes with accessibility to people who are disabled (usually cognitively or emotional disabled) or from different, perhaps non-English cultures. Both of these can interfere with competence required to edit Wikipedia, and also with being accepted in Wikipedia. Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Emily Monroe wrote: >>> The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals >>> we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares). >> >> Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this >> question not out of spite, but of curiosity. >> > It is composed of two things. Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely > have been devolved (sort of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the > qualification being that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely). > This is > fundamentally good. It means that there is no need to review formally > and at length the evidence on a particular case of vandalism, > because by > now there is no real doubt about the standards to apply. And then > there > is the part that some admins (probably not particularly > representative) > are happy enough to run someone off the site either with little chance > to show they can reform, or by using more weaselly versions of > "disruptive" behavior on the same level as vandalism (which is > basically > malicious damage to the site). This is not good, but it is hard to get > anyone not directly concerned to care about abuse within that part of > the system. In short, the checks and balances can fail where people > are > unscrupulous and/or are too vested in getting rid of a particular > editor > who is not a classic vandal but something else. > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l