Fred Bauder points out that what I suggest amounts to a permanent ban. Yes, this is precisely what I mean. I understand that many people might disagree with me, but this is the effect of what I proposed. If Jimbo rejects it, so be it. But to reiterate, what I am suggesting should only be used in the most extreme cases, and after some sort of due process. David Gerard points out that this is, in effect, the current situation concerning Cheese Dreams. Yes, I understand that too. But it is an informal and ad hoc response. I am suggesting giving the ArbCom one more, formal, ultimate sanction. I think making the sanction official will make it easier to enforce; having the ArbCom in charge guarantees that the accused will benefit from due process. By the way, although I do think CheeseDreams would be a perfect candidate for this sanction, my main point was not to orchestrate some consensus that she is an "outlaw" -- that would make this just another ad hoc response. My main interest is in creating an ultimate sanction the ArbCom can apply in the most extreme cases, where banning and blocking are ineffective and scoffed at by the person blocked. Put another way, I am suggesting a new protocol for enforcing permanent bans; the protocol amounts to asking all editors to be on the lookout for activity by the person banned and known (it has to be official) sock puppets, and to reverse edits without any fear of violating the three revert rule. Nicholas Knight suggests another strategy for handling this, and Rhobite has some concerns. I am neutral, but do hope that there will be vigorous discussion about Nicholas's proposal. It may be more effective than mine -- or less effective; perhaps both proposals have merit and can work in concert. But the main point that I share with Nicholas Knight: "It's just going to get worse, and as legitimate users get fed up and leave, people like CD will turn Wikipedia into a laughing stock." Forget about my personal gripe with CD -- forget about CD altogether. The point is, we can count on situations in the future where a person given the most reasonable temporary ban will flout the ruling of the ArbCom, and, by using many sock puppets, effectively neutralize our current means of blocking users. This calls for some new policy. People now have my proposal and Nicholas's proposal to consider. I really urge all committed Wikipedians to participate in this discussion, and perhaps develop other proposals worthy of consideration. Should such a discussion occur primarily on this list-serve, for now? Or should we create some page on Wikipedia where people can discuss proposals (if so, what page? Where?)? Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701