User talk:Vassyana/Problem solving
We definitely have problems to solve: today an ArbCom member says he thinks traditional dispute resolution is failing. In general, I think this is on the right lines. I agree, in particular, with your point about previous blocks and sanctions. How is it that we have editors with 7 blocks for revert-warring and they're not on revert limitation? I also agree that the community is stupidly babyish and turns everything over to ArbCom at the first opportunity. The problem is that the community is very bad at making decisions itself, partly because discussions are open to all (for some "admin consensus" should be what counts") and mostly because we have no clearly-defined consensus-making structure, not one that accommodate hundreds of people. That doesn't help. More later... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussions vs. decisive action[edit]
What Wikipedia needs to do is...
- Eliminate counter-productive discussions that lead to a consensus stalemate which prevent admins from taking decisive actions against problem editors.
- Safegaurd discussions that are essential to consensus-building on who is a problem editor.
I know, not very helpful. I'll have to put some thought into it and see if I can come up with anything that is useful in solving this dilema. One thing I do know is that the problem is wholly political, from the macro-scale of ideological differences in society itself, to micro-scale groups of supporters that either argue a problem editor out of trouble or pony up a sympathetic admin to unblock them if they do get into trouble. While I don't follow the enforcement boards regularly, I have yet to see any established editor with supporters suffer any sort of real punitive sanctions that lead them to curb their actions. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)