steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050206 03:10]:
But I do have another proposal for dealing with these kinds of situations: give the ArbCom the power to declare a user an "outlaw." We would need clear guidelines for how to decide who is an outlaw, but for one thing we must be specific that this is someone who has utter disregards for bans or partial bans, and who cannot effectively be blocked. There should be some deliberation at the ArbCom before declaring someone an outlaw, to ensure due process. The consequence of being an outlaw is this: anyone -- any editor, sysop or not -- can revert an outlaw's work at any time, without restriction (so if doing so means that they must revert more than three times in one day, their reverts will still be considered legitimate and they won't be punished).
This is similar to ban by acclamation, e.g. the Sollog pattern vandal or Willy On Wheels - there was no ruling against either, but both have acted with such egregius obnoxiousness that they're pretty mcuh revert and block on sight.
My thinking is this: in the case of CD right now, blocking is not effective so all we really can do is revert her work. Right now this is being done primarily by sysops, and however large the list of admins are, in the case of someone as reckless as CD this still becomes a big job. My idea is that there are some violations of behavior -- eg. when someone laughs and says "you can't stop me now" -- that the best thing to do is to mobilize the entire community to take action.
I think CD is still under her original short ban - every time she breaks it, she restarts the clock. Then the admins come along, block the sockpuppets and revert the edits. So the process you describe is pretty much how things are now ;-) So I'm not sure an additional ruling in CD is needed, particularly not one of a novel form.
- d.