The sample size is pretty small, so hard to generalize, but I was struck by recent cases where temporary injunctions got people's attention, and other cases where people withdrew their complaints.
Can't be timid either - people have to know that upping the ante ends in the certainty of a permanent ban. I think it's safe to say that anyone engaging in that kind of behavior is not actually interested in building the encyclopedia, so what loss in getting rid of them?
Stan
Fred Bauder wrote:
I've been doing a bit of that, but it seems to up the ante and open the floodgates rather than awe and silence.
Fred
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:53:52 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee term lengths
Fred Bauder wrote:
In many cases users try to solve problems by upping the ante, trying essentially to overwealm, necessarily calling forth some remedy which restricts.
Ah yes, the rise of "arbcom lawyers". My impression is that it would help the arbitration process for the AC to be seen as somewhat unpredictable, a la irascible courtroom judges - revert an edit or mouth off on an evidence page, boom, banned for a week with no appeal, irrespective of the merits of the overall case. After reading some of what gets thrown in front of the AC, I can see why the "contempt of court" concept was invented! :-)
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l