The threshold to capture the attention of enough arbitrators to do anything has been pretty high. There's three or four who do the job, but how many cases have been sitting open, with half-voted-upon proposals, for *months* now, because none of the other arbitrators will stop by and vote/discuss?
It's not fair to those that have to put up with said users - and nor is it fair to the user with the axe hanging above their head for months.
Anything to speed this up would be a step in the right direction
-- ambi
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:13 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We can make emergency (temporary) orders, but so far the threshold to capture the attention of enough arbitrators to do this has been pretty high.
Fred
From: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com Reply-To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:34:42 -0400 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Countering the "Just as bad" tactic (was: Objecting to hatespeech is grounds forbeing banned?)
Danny suggested the other night that the AC be encouraged to produce some sort of initial response/ruling within a short period of time, allowing for more detailed arbitration after a few months of deliberation if necessary. This might be one way to strengthen the AC--community feedback loop.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l