Fred Bauder wisely observed:
"Arbitration is not a tool to be used in struggle with other
editors. If you are struggling with other editors rather
than complaining in good faith about violations of Wikipedia
policy you are probably violating Wikipedia policies
yourself."
However, users (of all ranks):
* Generally regard arbitration as a HIM vs. YOU matter.
* Often use arbitration as a weapon with which to carry on struggles
with other editors.
What we need instead is a board which enforces rules in HIM vs. US
paradigm. That is, a user's conduct or speech is evaluated in terms of
how well it supports or thwarts the aims of Wikipedia.
If someone's name-calling is really bugging others, distracting them
from writing superb articles, and making them want to kick the dust of
this crummy little town off their shoes -- well, I'd say then that HIS
NAME-CALLING is out of line and ought to be squelched somehow. It would
be good to have a rule on hand, which we can pull off a shelf, dust off,
and apply. (YOU ARE BLOCKED FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME.) The time-out gives
the rest of us a chance to recover from his annoying behavior, and get
back into the normal, everyday routine of cooperative editing. And he
might even *choose* to adhere more closely to the rules when we let him
come back.
Let's stop making it a "dispute resolution process" between two EQUALS
who happen to disagree. Maybe ONE of them is actually in the RIGHT, and
the other guy is MESSING THINGS UP. In such a case, it's not a matter of
smoothing over a 'conflict' between two people. It's enforcing the rules
of the COMMUNITY so we can get on with furthering the aims of our
project.
Let's send this message to all and sundry:
"You wanna help us build a great encyclopedia? Fine, and welcome! You
want to advance your own agenda? Stop right here: learn to do it our
way, or simply DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE."
Uncle Ed Poor
Wikipedia's First Elected Bureaucrat
Developer Emeritus
...and all around nice guy!