On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:51:12 +0000, "Sam Korn" <smoddy(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
In this case, I think there needs to be consideration
for increased
use of temporary injunctions by the ArbCom. I don't think some kind
of formalised vigilantism is going to be helpful.
I am torn here. On the one hand, I think that community-based
management of problem editors is a good thing. On the other hand,
there are insufficient eyeballs (for community bans or anything else).
ArbCom does not scale well. Maybe with more arbs it would, but maybe
the simple cases can simply be handled by admins (as in practice they
usually are) and the complex cases left to ArbCom. The missing link
here is the topical ban; only ArbCom currently does that, and a goodly
number of people seem to feel that in unambiguous cases we should
simply tell an editor not to edit a certain topic directly due to
conflict of interest. But we need to record that somewhere, which is
where all this started out.
Right now it's all half-formed ideas. We probably only need the
existing processes and guidelines, additional stuff may well be
redundant in the final analysis, because in the end what we are
talking about is essentially establishing some kind of enforcement of
an RfC outcome without having to go all the way to ArbCom. If a case
went to ArbCom which had an RfC behind it, a decent number of
complainants, a requested temporary injunction of a topical ban, and
that was also the requested final outcome, would we not simply be
wasting everyone's time?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG