[WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms

[Poor, Edmund W]

> > This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly
> > what Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat 
> > them around the head with a cluebat until they realise he 
> > means it, then gently suggest they behave with suggestions of 
> > how to. It's sometimes more work than it seems like it should 
> > be, but can work if the idjit is cluifiable at all.
> 
> Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
> 
> Peter (Skyring)

Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul. It's
slipped down to relativism:

We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both parties
considered to have equal standing. This can never work.

IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy standards
(or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial Topic), while the
other insists on being uncivil, adding inaccurate information, or using
the article to push their point of view (POV) 

THEN

* it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
* it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other party being
"wrong"

Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce civility
and accuracy as key values of our community - and stamp out bias too!

Ed Poor