At 04:28 PM 11/8/2004 +0000, Charles Matthews wrote:
"Bryan Derksen" wrote
Kicking off 0.1% of Wikipedia's users
isn't going to significantly reduce
the pool of editors, and would reduce the stress for a significant portion
of the 99.9% who remain. I don't see what these 1-in-1000 antisocials are
contributing to Wikipedia that is worth it to endure the bad atmosphere
they generate for everyone else.
Well, I think that's the debate really. If it was uncontroversial who they
were, and that a surgical removal was possible without splitting the
community, they would be banned quite quickly.
But there doesn't seem to actually _be_ a way to get a quick resolution of
even an obvious case. I'm not necessarily talking about bans here, I'd be
quite satisfied with an official "what you're doing here on this article is
unacceptable, quit it." If arbitration worked quickly then I suspect "weak"
rulings wouldn't be a problem because an incorrigible offender would
rapidly accumulate a lot of them and the need for stronger measures would
then become obvious too.
Basically, my personal complaint with the system is not what decisions it
reaches - so far all the ArbCom decisions I've happened to hear about have
seemed like reasonable ones. It's the speed with which the system comes to
them.