Rick wrote:
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
[addiction model of wikipedia]
> In the meantime, it gives
>the
>ArbCom considerable flexibility for more creative
>remedies
>for bad behaviour than a mere ban, which the real
>addicts
>tend to sockpuppet anyway. "You *really* want your
>fix?
>Write two 500-word essays on why NPOV and No
>Personal Attacks
>are good ideas. If we score each 9/10 or better, you
>can
>edit again." I think there's a lot of scope there
>for really
>*fixing* behaviour.
That's a creative approach. I can't wait to
see what
you come up with. :)
The above is of course ridiculously elaborate. Ha! Ha! Though
we just handed down a requirement that an editor read through
the policies they broke and then post a note on their talk
page saying they'd done so, and are on a policy-violation parole
for a length of time. We'll see how that goes.
Given the best result of an arbcom case would be for everyone to
behave well afterwards, we are happily experimenting on our
HOPELESSLY ADDICTED lab rats to see what will work. It's fun!
And, we hope, lovingly productive in getting an encyclopedia
out the door. It's nice not being bound by precedent too.
Don't forget that anyone interested in a case is welcome to
suggest remedies on the proposed decision talk page!
- d.