Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is not 100% clear to me what the community views the
limits of my
constitutional powers to be in situation like this. It would be good
to have this clarified, so that I could make appropriate proclamations
at appropriate times so as to ensure that behavior like this is not
implicitly rewarded by the (necesssary) time delays of the arbitration
committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy
According to the arbitration policy, you are effectively the court to
which decrees of the arbitration committee can be appealed. Since the
situation arose from such a decree, I think we can take a broad view and
consider the circumstances a form of appeal. And to the extent that this
appeal raised questions not directly considered during arbitration (for
example, Quagga's behavior), I'm comfortable with you handling those
issues as well. As part of an appeal, I think you can still be, in legal
terms, a court of original jurisdiction.
In my opinion, when a banned user makes direct threats
of a "war"
including elaborate proclamations as to how he's going to use a large
number of proxies, sock puppets, whatever, it would be best for me to
firmly and immediately declare that this is an extra-ordinary case and
that the ban is extended indefinitely until appeal is made to the
arbitration committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy
Since we seem to have determined that evading a ban causes the ban
period to start over, I don't think additional declarations are
necessary. "Banned users with poor self-control may end up banning
themselves indefinitely", no intervention by you is required.
Also, while the arbitration committee may be slow, they did already
provide for an additional 30-day ban at their discretion if Wik tried to
circumvent the decree. If Wik did return after serving his one-week ban,
I trust implementing that would be a simple formality.
But I think it would be fine, and safe, if it were
clear that I still can ban in some extra-ordinary cases,
I know extraordinary measures may seem necessary in the heat of the
moment, but even this incident is starting to fade a little, and I think
our procedures are holding up reasonably well. In the end, of course,
you still have the authority to ban people. The thing is, that's not an
extraordinary power, we can just say it's inherent in being a court of
appeal. You can, if you choose, modify arbitration rulings, including
shortening, lengthening, or imposing bans. The real problem, as Fred
already identified, is having to study the case enough to make an
informed decision.
--Michael Snow