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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Matthews [mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 7:35 AM
> To: Wikien list
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Objecting to hatespeech is
> grounds forbeingbanned? Huh?!
>
>
> Rebecca wrote
>
> > Sometimes, Charles, I really do wonder if you read people's posts
> > before replying to them.
>
> Not a fair comment. My point is that consistency cannot under
> current conditions be instantly demanded, in the form that if
> Y is just as bad as X etc. It can be demanded in the longer
> term in the form of precedents; which indeed is something to
> ask about.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>