Someone wrote:
Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that has taken several weeks, if not months, to get there. We keep getting promises that something, somehow, will get accomplished, and we see absolutely zip.
The arbitration committee has only existed for less than two months. We've spent a good deal of that time working on our procedures. Given that and the huge backlog of cases, it would be nice if people cut us some slack so that we don't feel pressure to make decisions for the sake of making decisions. Bad decisions and shaky organizational foundations are made that way.
We are trying to build a structure that will be resilient and longlasting. We are also all volunteers who are spending a lot of time on our discussions and deliberations. For example right now we are discussing the case of Wik.
Anthere wrote:
If someone is seriously bugging you, start a poll for a 24 hours, or a week banning, advertise it. If the poll shows that 80% of people strongly agree, ban the guy while the committee is working on him, and that is it.
Polling is Step 3 of the dispute resolution process. I encourage people to use it - even in cases of user conduct disputes (but do be careful). I for one would not recommend any sanction against an admin who temp banned a user based on such a 80% poll. IMO, such an admin would be expressing the will of the community. Such a case, IMO, could then by-pass mediation and go to the arbitration committee.
When there is very strong suspicion of crime, he can be maintained in jail before the trial actually occur.
In the United States this is called probable cause. It gives the police the ability arrest people based on reasonable suspicion of a committing a crime. It also gives the courts the ability to hold somebody in jail while they await trial.
Raul654 wrote:
By the same token, there are others who feel that vigilantism/ unilaterialism is bad; that the dispute resolution guidelines are worthless if we don't follow them. This is also a very valid point.
That is why we need to get into the habit of following them. Things drifted for too long and some among us have gotten into the habit of edit wars, rude behavior, and bullying. It will take time and a good deal of effort by many people to reverse this trend - I already get the sense that things are changing for the better, however.
I think both sides can be placated. I propose that we ban him, until such time as the arbitration committee can get together and render a verdict. This would remove much of the urgency from the issue. The arbitration committee would be free to go at whatever pace they want
I tend to agree. But with the caveat that such a temp ban be based on the will of the community as demonstrated by the poll, and not by the whim of any one admin. Again, use of step 3 (polling) can and should be practiced if and when step 2 (request for comment) has either broken down or been beaten to death. However, I think we should be careful since holding a poll on whether or not to temp ban a user in good faith would be a personal attack. Thus the need for step 2 to occur first.
Not all cases will be as clear cut as PS.
Jimbo wrote:
Also, counter to Ed's proposal, but also in the spirit of not encouraging vigilantism, I am temp-banning Plautus under the arbitration committee makes some kind of decision.
Good. I will vote to accept the case. But if people want to see PS banned, then they should give the AC a lot of clear evidence to work with - statements are just a starting point (for me at least they need to be backed up by real evidence). This is especially important now that the AC is hearing more than one case at a time. I'm already spending 1-2 hours a day several days a week on dispute resolution and AC topics (on top of everything else I do around here).
I want diffs dammit!
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools