On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:51:12 +0000, "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I think there needs to be consideration for increased use of temporary injunctions by the ArbCom. I don't think some kind of formalised vigilantism is going to be helpful.
I am torn here. On the one hand, I think that community-based management of problem editors is a good thing. On the other hand, there are insufficient eyeballs (for community bans or anything else).
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 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.
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. 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?
Guy (JzG)