On 17/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
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 AC has often said "look, just use your admin sense and ban this idiot."
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.
I really wouldn't be sure about anyone less than the AC trying to put a topic ban on an editor.
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.
That's a really horrible and stupid idea, e.g. the RFC against Kelly Martin which overwhelmingly censured her for removing blatant copyright violations without a vote first.
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?
The Community(tm) is far too often collectively an idiot.
- d,.