On 10/14/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: ...
Damn, someone beat me to saying it. As Riana says, rather a moot point now, but I think we need to seriously consider some processes other than "Let people misbehave for months on end but never get -quite- bad enough for an already-overloaded ArbCom to take the case or an admin to justify a block." A means by which the community could request lesser sanctions than an outright indef block or ban is needed.
...
Something like that is what I have in mind. We need to be much more flexible and immediate.
Fred
I think this is an excellent idea. We had such a problematic editor in the plants area. She was allowed to go on and one, without any blocking, or any consequences for reverting after a dozen discussions in which she agreed not to revert. She was allowed to continue italicizing higher taxa after Wikipedia plant editors decided they would not be italicized on en.Wiki. She even came back with a half a dozen sock puppets after being permanently banned to do just the same thing.
I think, in the long run, she got so bad because she was never just blocked in the first place. A series of escalating blocks either would have gotten the message across, or gotten rid of her soon--the former unlikely, for all she claims to be able to read everything on the planet about plants better than every other person who ever edited Wikipedia, it's clear she doesn't read for understanding by her failure to understand the community would not put up with her any longer.
There are a number of trouble making editors, serious trouble making editors, who obviously like to contribute, make solid contributions, but cannot debate with civility with other editors--blocking these editors sooner might get the message across really well.
KP