Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Neutral: reply |
|||
Line 329:
:Nathan says "I realize that banning people for their beliefs treads on truly dangerous ground, but I submit that we have in fact been doing this for some time without major incident and without expanding to less widely objectionable views." I don't believe this is a tenable strategy; we don't have to cast our minds back very far to remember when participation on [[WP:BADSITES]] was enough to tar and feather an editor. The issue here is that whatever problematic belief you chose to make worthy of banning – Zionism, paedophilia-acceptance, cold fusion advocate – it will always be used by unscrupulous editors as a label to stick to their disputants and advance their position in the power struggle. This is not hypothetical; if you were around in 2007 you will remember this as a favourite tactic of certain notorious and now fallen-from-grace power-admins. Ultimately, it is the neutrality of the articles which matters, not the personalities, and futile efforts to neutralize editors will only be exploited in the end. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"><font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh </font></span>]] 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:: The key point is "those who attempt to inappropriately edit encyclopaedia content to reflect those views.". In my view you have been far too lenient in your desire that ''everyone'' should edit, and the result has been bad. The [[Ayn Rand]] and associated articles are a case in point. No reasonable person would think that the sheer proliferation of Rand-related material reflects current mainstream academic consensus. The reality is that it reflects the determined efforts of a crowd of fans, who refuse to let any kind of negative comment about Objectivism. This is a very serious problem for Wikipedia, and a very difficult one. Your view seems to be that neutrally-minded editors should put up or shut up. As for destroying Wikipedia, the community itself seems to be managing this quite well. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] ([[User talk:Peter Damian|talk]]) 06:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, if nothing else this is as interesting discussion as I've seen in the neutral section of an RfA. I don't advocate taking action against editors in group number 1 (those who hold a view), and in any case we couldn't - how would we identify them? In the specific cases that prompted your original comment a year ago, the editors involved had openly professed their views (including a man-girl love userbox and many discussion comments for the PPA, and anti-Semitic comments on noticeboards and elsewhere for the denier) and were involved in editing articles in the areas of dispute. As with any subjective decision making process, its impossible to draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable - but [[Potter Stewart]] knew how to deal with that problem, and so do we. I respect your position, though I disagree, and since my vote in any section will not effect the outcome I'll remain neutral. [[User:Nathan|<strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan</strong>]][[User talk:Nathan|<sup><strong style="color:#0033CC"> T </strong></sup>]] 15:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
| |||