The arguments which claim that other contributors are "just as bad" are pernicious and self-serving. When I taught Sunday School, I figured out how to finesse this tactic. Any time there were multiple violators of a rule (such as No Hitting or No Teasing), I would simply target the MOST RECENT violator for a time-out. In all likelihood, I wound up giving a time-out to someone who was an aggrieved party and only "righting a wrong" (as they may have thought). Yet, the effect was remarkable. The students soon learned that retaliation was not an effective tactic. I reinforced this lesson by suggesting that if teased or hit in class, they might appeal to me (the teacher) rather than taking matters into their own hands. The next stage was a real eye-opener. The ones that were always starting trouble found that they COULD NOT provoke a response from the other. When one student bullied another, he did not get hit back. Eventually, he'd get caught red-handed (so to speak) and get a time-out. I can't recall a case where any student get more than 3 timeouts for the same type of offense. In less than 3 months, my class became very orderly. It fairly hummed with tranquility and good cheer and grew rapidly in size. The student who had previously been the worst trouble-maker voluntarily took on the task of telling every new student the rules! I've told this story many times on this list, but no one has figured out how to apply its lessons to management of adult Wikipedians. Too bad. So much time and talent wasted. I would like the arbcom to apply swift and short bans. Or change the system so that any admin can apply a ban of up to 7 days, subject to arbcom review. If a contributor has been clearly warned of the rule on his talk page, but continues to violate it, why not let ANY SYSOP apply a temp-ban? Can't we trust administrators to apply the 'rule of law'? If the contributor genuinely feels the rule has been misapplied, let him appeal to the arbcom himself. (Not charge the admin with 'abuse', of course, but apply to the arbcom for leniency or clemency or a reversal.) Like a squad of sheriffs. Lock up the troublemaker first. Then, he can either stay 'in jail' while he cools off (or sobers up) *OR* he can demand a hearing in front of a judge. We're getting to be such a big community that we're going to have to do SOMETHING like this.