Stevertigo
wrote:
> Well for starters, how about if you, Jimbo. and
you,
Ed,
don't pamper and coddle people "like" him.
Be careful, Stevertigo, that sword cuts in both
directions.
--Jimbo
If I repeat my offer from last year, will Steve or
anyone else accept
it?
Make me a "lieutenant" or "sheriff" or "nursery
school teacher",
and I will liberally apply "time-out" to anyone who
breaks a
rule.
I'll use something like Andrew's graded system of
"consequences":
1. A friendly explanation or reminder.
2. A warning.
3. A unilateral temporary ban (length: anywhere
from, say, 3 to
24 hours)
4. An indefinite ban (to be resolved on the mailing
list and/or
by appeal to our Captain or Head Marshall, Jimbo
Wales)
I keep proposing this every 6 months or so, but
people keep
objecting that it will erode our freedom. Well, have
you ever counted
the number of writers who LEAVE Wikipedia because
they have NO FREEDOM
freedom to contribute in peace here?
I say we ought to try it out: say, for a 6-weeks
trial period.
If it works, let's keep doing it. If it works but
needs
refinement, let's tweak it. It if it doesn't work,
let's stop
it.
But anything's better than having several dozen edit
wars
simmering at a low boil, ready to erupt like
volcanoes at a
moment's notice.
I say, let's give it a try.
Ed Poor
What if a new page is created where the one-day ban
will discussed, and the person will be banned for one
day if, after 24 hours, the general concensus is to
ban. I just can't see banning completely unilaterally
to be that helpful.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search