[WikiEN-l] The difficulty of retaining volunteer writers

Sat Dec 3 14:48:37 UTC 2005

This matter is different from our usual case, as we have all  
encountered FuelWagon doing his thing.

It is only that general familiarity which could support  proactive or  
summary action.

Often the first we hear about someone is when it shows up on Requests  
for arbitration and we are truly clueless about what is going on. We  
don't want the endless pile of evidence we are usually presented with  
(No one could actually read it all). What we need is a few examples  
which nicely illustrate the problem. This is not too much to ask for.  
You are writers. You are editors.

Fred

On Dec 3, 2005, at 4:49 AM, Cormac Lawler 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