> Fred, arbitration doesn't help in such cases. The arbitrators are not in > a position to make editorial decisions. All they can do is tell the > parties to control themselves, reiterate the principle of NPOV and > decide upon further sanctions, which usually just add fuel to the fire. > That's exactly what I was talking about in my previous message. > Furthermore, the arbitrations are often conducted like a trial, and > anyone who is not too acquainted with the legal language and procedures > gets lost there. > > As for sanctions against disruptors - Clearly, a person who deletes > paragraphs or adds f-words is a vandal that should be blocked. The > problem is, that most blocked editors are not like that. Wikipedia used > to have too major rules that are totally ignored today, namely _assume > good faith_ and _ignore all rules_. The former rule means that any user > has the right to be considered as a good person who came to enrich > Wikipedia unless clearly proved otherwise. In most cases today, > administrators assume that users (particularly new users) came to make > disruptions unless proven otherwise. The latter rule means that > Wikipedia is not about technicalities. If your actions are against the > rules but derive from a sincere intention to improve Wikipedia, than you > should not be considered a disruptor. Today, for example, a violation of > the 3-revert rule is considered a justification for a ban, even if the > user had a good reason to violate the rule. Even in the most harsh legal > systems people are not always punished for breaking the law, because > circumstances are also taken into account. It is quite awkward that > Wikipedia, that started with the "ignore all rules" principle, has > become even harsher with regards to users' violations of rules. > > Dror K
That's what we're talking about... Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
