[WikiEN-l] The difficulty of retaining volunteer writers

Sat Dec 3 12:01:58 UTC 2005

On 12/3/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is a "better way" to deal with this not to allow arbitrators to
> proactively take cases, as opposed to waiting for cases to come to
> them? If this situation is as you say it is, Sarah (and i feel like
> believing you rather than trawling through these evidence pages), then
> the damage that has been done will only continue throughout the
> process of arbitration. If arbitrators were to take and act on cases
> that they can see are being destructive, then they could make and
> delegate rulings with the collective force of a group (as opposed to
> the actions of one or two admins) in the way they feel appropriate,
> without having to have a long, drawn-out process that can be turned
> into a "circus". This is a dangerous suggestion, I know, but I felt I
> should make it.
>
Cormac, I agree with the idea of the arbitration committee being
allowed to be more pro-active, though it becomes a question of extra
workload, and I doubt they would want any. This is why I was thinking
of an extra group of editors set up specifically to deal with trolling
and harassment as an extension of the arbcom, reporting to them and
operating under their jurisdiction: a subcommittee. But the point you
make is dead right: FuelWagon will turn the arbcom case into another
platform for his harassment, which he did with the two RfCs. On the
upside, it'll be concentrated on one spot instead of being spread
throughout the project, but it would be good if there were a way of
dealing with it that didn't involve all the nonsense being reproduced
yet again.

Sarah