Before a "short ban" would be considered the editor would have lost an
arbitration dispute. How about some creative alternatives to bans as
results? For example, an editor may only be having trouble in certain areas,
for example, Fred Bauder, should he lose an arbitration might be forbidden
from editing any philosophy articles....
Fred
From: Bjorn Lindqvist
<bjrn.lindqvist(a)telia.com>
Reply-To: bjrn.lindqvist(a)telia.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:03:01 +0100
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Banning for a day, hi to Cunc
I think no one should be short banned without a
clear process and global
agreement upon using this sort of action. Currently, we do not know who
could decide of such an action, and we do not have any arguments laid
down. Plus we confuse "short ban" as a mean to cool down the editor,
"short ban" as a mean to give a break to the group, and "short ban"
as a
way to get around due process.
Or "short ban" as a means to publicly and wikipedia-globally humiliate
someone and declare that person to be "wrong"?
Short bans are a bad idea.
BL
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l