On 10/14/07, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
...
Damn, someone beat me to saying it. As Riana says,
rather a moot point
now, but I think we need to seriously consider some processes other than
"Let people misbehave for months on end but never get -quite- bad enough
for an already-overloaded ArbCom to take the case or an admin to justify
a block." A means by which the community could request lesser sanctions
than an outright indef block or ban is needed.
...
Something like that is what I have in mind. We need to be much more flexible and
immediate.
Fred
I think this is an excellent idea. We had such a problematic editor
in the plants area. She was allowed to go on and one, without any
blocking, or any consequences for reverting after a dozen discussions
in which she agreed not to revert. She was allowed to continue
italicizing higher taxa after Wikipedia plant editors decided they
would not be italicized on en.Wiki. She even came back with a half a
dozen sock puppets after being permanently banned to do just the same
thing.
I think, in the long run, she got so bad because she was never just
blocked in the first place. A series of escalating blocks either
would have gotten the message across, or gotten rid of her soon--the
former unlikely, for all she claims to be able to read everything on
the planet about plants better than every other person who ever edited
Wikipedia, it's clear she doesn't read for understanding by her
failure to understand the community would not put up with her any
longer.
There are a number of trouble making editors, serious trouble making
editors, who obviously like to contribute, make solid contributions,
but cannot debate with civility with other editors--blocking these
editors sooner might get the message across really well.
KP