Because "some" of us want to bend themselves into such pretzel shapes to try to prevent the rest of us from carrying on with the business of creating an encyclopedia, and are more intrerested in allowing anyone and everyone to do anything and everything they can.
RickK
"James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org wrote: On Sunday, November 07, 2004 3:35 AM, wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org <> wrote:
From: Fred Bauder Reply-To: English Wikipedia To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (wasReithy is a problem) Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 07:02:40 -0700
Thirdly, sentences should be much, much harsher. Ban them for life and get it over with. Banning only slows them down anyway, most of them will come back under a different name. But at least the community will be able to unite behind the AC ruling.
This was tried at first by one arbitrator but was overruled by the majority. Unless the bulk of the arbitrators differ markedly from the users there is little support for lifetime banning.
Proof that the process is broken. We all know what a troll is.
We do? Wow. Then why needs there be any dispute resolution process at all, if it is always so very clear-cut for "all" of us?
Blanket statements of black-and-white judgement are almost always wrong, and certainly normally laughable.
Yours,