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 בתאריך 09/04/11 21:47, ציטוט Fred Bauder: >> About the foundation openness, >> I wanted to write a comment on the foundation page, but it was not open. >> So I wrote my comment on SJ talk page, >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sj#Openness >> >> Here is what I have to say about wikipedia and openness : >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> >> HI, I wanted to comment on >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Talk:Resolution:Openness >> >> I have lost interest in wasting my time on wikipedia after being harassed >> by >> WhiteWriter and his friends while editing articles related to kosovo. The >> serbs are stalking and harassing anyone who even wants to add simple >> facts >> and make life difficult for anyone. It is a real pain. I hope that you >> will >> get them under control some day, they are really messing wikipedia up. >> thanks, mike James Michael >> DuPont<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdupont>( >> talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont>) 21:54, 8 April >> 2011 >> >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> >> Mike > Was there an arbitration case? Or other dispute resolution events? If so, > could you share your reactions to the fairness and comprehensiveness of > what happened? Please give us some links... > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
