Nobody is really debating that Plautus is a known vandal, that's a given by now. The only quesiton is what to do with him now. I'd like to offer a compromise.
Those of us aligned squarely in the ban-him camp want him banned permanently and immediately. We feel that Ed's noble efforts to reform him are doomed (if not already so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado - "I feel you abused my trust, Ed Poor, and for that reason you are not likely to get it again in the future."). We are not willing to sit around waiting for the arbitration committee to get its act together (however long that might be) while he is free to vandalize articles and cause grief to other contributors.
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.
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 commitee would be free to go at whatever pace they want.
I think this is a fair way of giving both sides what they want. In legal terms, think of it an emergency injunction. He'll get his due process, we in the community will be protected from a known vandal.
--Mark Pellegrini User:Raul654
PS: Jimbo, I didn't mean to give people the impression I was quoting you - I apologize. I was actually quoting Erik/Eloquence.