Erik was at his eloquent best when he wrote:
<< It's not supposed to minimally intrusive. It's supposed to be effective. Right now we have the situation that there is a set of users who are quite productive, but who use edit warring as a technique to get an article into the revision they want it to be in.
That is so much in contradiction with everything we stand for that we should take immediate countermeasures. It creates a very bad impression for newbies if we let people get away with that kind of behavior without an immediate reaction.
A 24 hour ban is not the same as a regular ban in the effects on the user. We can come up with a nice, friendly standard text, basically telling the user to calm down and when they are ready to respect our policies, please return to editing. It won't develop into the kind of problems we had with Lir, because there's no incentive to create another identity if you can just keep editing under your regular one 24 hours later. We could even add a clause that if they pledge to stop edit warring immediately, they can be unbanned immediately (of course if they break that pledge, they will be rebanned). >>
This is what I've been saying the whole time. Thank you, O Eloquent One!
The only variant I would add is that each "ban" should be subject to review and appeal -- by the Mediation or Arbitration Committees.
That is the essential difference between Vigilantism (which we all oppose) and Democracy (which I think most of us support).
Let's put this to vote.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed