Vancouverguy wrote:
You're right- it does say it should be able to ban Jimbo. Not likely to happen.
May I suggest "Hooked on Phonics"? Recommending a ban to Jimbo is not the same as recommending to ban Jimbo. Perhaps switching those two little words could indicate a dyslexia problem. At least Steve humourously recognized that he had misread the "to" as "on".
Ec
From: "Stevertigo"
At first read, I thought it said, "The mediation panel should be able to recommend a ban on Jimbo."
That might be wishful thinking, but at least we can set this as one of the finite limits-- "No bans on the guy who owns the servers and the domain names." ~S~
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
blairr wrote:
That's good for vandals, but what about problem
users.
For things like strange edits (eg Nuuk/Godthab),
and users that have made
POV changes, as well as other things.
I like the idea of mediation by a select group of
users, as well as
empowering these users, if the user-in-question
does not change their
behavior, to orchestrate bans.
Simply making strange edits is not an offence. Even POV changes are not in theselves offences. How a person goes about doing these things is much more important.
The mediation panel should be able to recommend a ban to Jimbo or a delegated person. That recommendation could also include a length of time for the ban. If they become involved directly in the ban themselves it could compromise their objectivity.
Ec