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