it's a way of stopping things from happening faster than the list members can react. It's also a usful

way >to cause someone to do what they should be doing when >involved in a heavy dispute: take deep breath, sleep >on it and come back the next day.

I dearly agree with you

I suggest the following: one administrator or 3

sysops >who have not previously been involved in the issue can >decide to put the temporary ban in place and raise the >matter on the mailing list then or as soon as the >request is made. Ban lifted in 12 hours (or 24?) or if >3 people on the list say so, after reviewing the >situation, not out of general dislike for bans. Ban >not lifted if the list result is longer term ban.

Administrator and sysops mean the same.

Perhaps you meant developer by admin ? If so, it is not a good idea. Though we love and trust our developers, several don't think they should have more weight than others in this type of decision. Especially since in reality only Erik risks to oppose the group in doing so. Several people precisely consider he has no right to do so. 3 sysops is a better choice. Note that in that case, there certainly were at least 3 sysops supporting the banning, though admitedly, no open discussion was made on the topic of course.

24/48 hours is a good time to cool down. Though perhaps not in this case.

That gives the list the greatest possible notice and cuts the potential for inappropriate use of the capability, while still letting it be used to give

the >list time to start to react to a rapidly developing >situation.

nod

On a different subject, RK is an interesting and

tough >problem. Some of the hardest choices I've had to make >have been when, in dictator position with a philosophy >resembling that I've seen Jimbo express here, I've had >to decide that the interest of the community is best >served by asking or compelling a contributor to depart >because their discouraging effect on others does more >harm than the good of their contributions. There's >some reason to believe that this may apply for RK but >the case hasn't been made yet, just claimed. This is >just about the toughest decision Jimbo will have to >make, so if you think RK needs to be banned for this >reason, please gather the case together with a >collection of specific examples for Jimbo and others >to review.

At some point, I wonder what is the real difference between a case being made and a case claimed. I am serious here.

As for gathering...I...doubt... many would deny here that RK is often using inappropriate words, is naming others vandals, calling for ban on them, and rather generously accusing others of being antisemites and nazi.

The argument might be between those with tough skins who think it is not so important, and those who have a hard time to cope with it and are driven away from articles where RK edit. Giving more credit for the thin skin position would be offering more humanity and compassion, and probably favor diversity in editors. And giving more credit for the thick skin position might be selecting stronger people perhaps more fit to cope with wikipedia environmental conditions. Both points of view are defendable I guess.

The other argument might be up to which point RK being a good editor (or an important editor to assure balance on very controversial topics as 172 argue) is enough to balance him being a difficult editor. Accepting him as such would (arguably) benefit some articles, and officially set a leval of rudeness tolerance depending on the perceived benefit one bring to the project. Not accepting would be (arguably) a loss to the project, and would set clearer behavioral guidelines, similar to anyone.

It is perhaps up to us (or to Jimbo ?) to decide if the place is a jungle or a garden ?

As for the collection of cases, the most recent were listed on meta, since (that is what I understood) it was considered anti wikilove, to gather evidence about a difficult user. I doubt not that if necessary we can set a list of those who shared a conflict with RK. However, I would prefer that we do not come to this. Mud moving is not good. This is a difficult topic as some argue we should avoid gathering evidence for the sake of good relationships, and some argue that evidence is necessary to ban someone.

OK, enough boldness for my first post to this list. I'm the user:JamesDay Alex756 has mentioned a few times in recent discussons on legal issues. Not a lawyer, just a community manager with a keen interest in online community law. More background on my user page.

James

the one with attached name ? :-)

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com