From: "Vancouverguy" blairr@telus.net
If it is blatent JoeM-style POV that is the problem, there is really no
need
for arbitration. However in cases like the "Japanese Pornograpy" article, then arbitration is nessesary since not everyone may think that the
article
is actually POV.
I am not sure that an article/NPOV dispute is actually the subject of banning. Though I guess that one could use an arbitrator to decide what NPOV is, but is that really very contentious? Can't most people who are here for a while understand that? Am I giving our users too much credit?
I thought what we were talking about is the problem with behaviour of users that is a violation of Wikiquette, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiquette and this is the basis for some kind of sanction or penalty (i.e access to the holy grail of wikis).
If we do decide to do this, there should be a "fast track" process that would be more efficient to go by when we are dealing with people like JoeM
That is what I was suggesting when I mentioned a temporary restraining ban for really outgrageous activity. There would have to be strict guidelines for that and an appeal to Jimbo so that there is some due process. Perhaps it got lost in my verbosity!
Alex756