[WikiEN-l] Re: How we should be dealing with Wik

Wed Jun 2 03:29:53 UTC 2004

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>It is not 100% clear to me what the community views the limits of my
>constitutional powers to be in situation like this.  It would be good
>to have this clarified, so that I could make appropriate proclamations
>at appropriate times so as to ensure that behavior like this is not
>implicitly rewarded by the (necesssary) time delays of the arbitration
>committee.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy
According to the arbitration policy, you are effectively the court to 
which decrees of the arbitration committee can be appealed. Since the 
situation arose from such a decree, I think we can take a broad view and 
consider the circumstances a form of appeal. And to the extent that this 
appeal raised questions not directly considered during arbitration (for 
example, Quagga's behavior), I'm comfortable with you handling those 
issues as well. As part of an appeal, I think you can still be, in legal 
terms, a court of original jurisdiction.

>In my opinion, when a banned user makes direct threats of a "war"
>including elaborate proclamations as to how he's going to use a large
>number of proxies, sock puppets, whatever, it would be best for me to
>firmly and immediately declare that this is an extra-ordinary case and
>that the ban is extended indefinitely until appeal is made to the
>arbitration committee.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy
Since we seem to have determined that evading a ban causes the ban 
period to start over, I don't think additional declarations are 
necessary. "Banned users with poor self-control may end up banning 
themselves indefinitely", no intervention by you is required.

Also, while the arbitration committee may be slow, they did already 
provide for an additional 30-day ban at their discretion if Wik tried to 
circumvent the decree. If Wik did return after serving his one-week ban, 
I trust implementing that would be a simple formality.

>But I think it would be fine, and safe, if it were clear that I still can ban in some extra-ordinary cases,
>
I know extraordinary measures may seem necessary in the heat of the 
moment, but even this incident is starting to fade a little, and I think 
our procedures are holding up reasonably well. In the end, of course, 
you still have the authority to ban people. The thing is, that's not an 
extraordinary power, we can just say it's inherent in being a court of 
appeal. You can, if you choose, modify arbitration rulings, including 
shortening, lengthening, or imposing bans. The real problem, as Fred 
already identified, is having to study the case enough to make an 
informed decision.

--Michael Snow