Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop

As part of enforcement
So far everyone, including Instantnood's last advocate Wgfinley, have said the existing bans and blocks not had an effect on stopping the edit wars. Part of the problem is that the last enforcement action required administrators to go into an existing dispute and try and decide if it was "inappropriate editing". No administrator actually wants to do this type of work (and judging by RfA criteria, the ability to do so is never raised), and the number that are willing to do it are insufficient to even begin to look at the volume of wars that Instantnood participates in.

Additionally, Instantnood instantly becomes a wiki-lawyer about the words and meaning of the last ArbCom case. Which, again, drives away administrators from problems that aren't theirs.

Any enforcement needs to be clear and prescriptive. SchmuckyTheCat 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What I really don't understand is why they would ignore article bans. This shows some kind of disregard for the Wikipedia community at large. Since we cannot, technologically, block a user from particular pages, it poses a problem in that the only "effective" way would be to block them entirely, which has the undesirable effect of cutting off their useful edits. enochlau (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)