[WikiEN-l] Duck Court

[Alex R.]

I tend to agree with you Little Dan, most of the damage done
can be rectified by reverting edits. Sure if someone is really
destructive it might be a lot of edits, but then we have a list
of all the contributions there only needs to be someone who
is willing to revert them all.

If you are too quick at banning someone you may not even
have enough material to show that the person should not
be allowed to contribute. better that they demonstrate their
bad behaviour before they undergo the "arbitration" ordeal.

There might be a really, really rare case that could be done
by the Wikimedia board, you will notice that Art III: sec. 4.4. of
the bylaws gives the Board of Trustees the right to suspend
member privileges in the cases of misconduct. Someone would
have to apply to the Board to get them to suspend the
member in that case.  I guess you have to convince the Board
members or make an application to them:
http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf

Alex756

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Duck Court


> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > Well, we could have a summary procedure for
> > egregious cases, couldn't call
> > it Kangaroo Court, maybe Duck Court. It could be
> > evoked by Ed Poor and a few
> > others of his status, say also Daniel Mayers. They
> > could then briefly
> > consider the matter and ban the offender until the
> > matter could be
> > considered by the mediation and arbitration
> > committees. Kind of like a
> > preliminary injunction. Grounds would be the
> > likelyhood of permanent damage
> > to the project resulting from serious offenses
> > combined with a general
> > refusal to listen.
> > 
> > Fred
> 
> Do we really need temporary bans? We didn't have the
> need for them before and they would be very damaging
> to the Wiki principle. Remember: Wikipedia is a Wiki
> Encyclopedia, not a courtroom. There's no real danger
> of letting someone off, aside from the chance that
> they might vandalize a few pages, something which is
> easily reversible. In the past, we've had a lot of
> trouble with unilateral bans, and they have always
> been condemned after the fact by almost everyone.
> 
> LDan
>