Rick wrote:
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[addiction model of wikipedia]
In the meantime, it gives the ArbCom considerable flexibility for more creative remedies for bad behaviour than a mere ban, which the real addicts tend to sockpuppet anyway. "You *really* want your fix? Write two 500-word essays on why NPOV and No Personal Attacks are good ideas. If we score each 9/10 or better, you can edit again." I think there's a lot of scope there for really *fixing* behaviour.
That's a creative approach. I can't wait to see what you come up with. :)
The above is of course ridiculously elaborate. Ha! Ha! Though we just handed down a requirement that an editor read through the policies they broke and then post a note on their talk page saying they'd done so, and are on a policy-violation parole for a length of time. We'll see how that goes.
Given the best result of an arbcom case would be for everyone to behave well afterwards, we are happily experimenting on our HOPELESSLY ADDICTED lab rats to see what will work. It's fun! And, we hope, lovingly productive in getting an encyclopedia out the door. It's nice not being bound by precedent too. Don't forget that anyone interested in a case is welcome to suggest remedies on the proposed decision talk page!
- d.