KNOTT, T wrote:
Wik has declared a "War" on Jimbo's talk
page. He appears to feel that
since there are a large number of proxies he could use, that there is
nothing we can do to stop him. I disagree. There is only one of him, and
hundreds of us. I suggest we adopt the following approach.
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
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
Such an approach would help to eliminate the unease that people feel
that Wik might be allowed back after his week ban is up, since after
all, the week ban was implemented *before* he went on this rampage,
and clearly these transgressions were far beyond the complex
circumstances that led to the ban in the first place.
There is room in wikipedia for tough controversies about what the
limits of reverting are, and so on. There is no room for people
declaring war on the very concept of a civilized and organized system
of decision making.
I don't want to return to the day when I was the sole banning
authority - I found that job to be extremely unpleasant. But I think
it would be fine, and safe, if it were clear that I still can ban in
some extra-ordinary cases, particularly since I would also be honor
bound to respect the outcome of an appeal to the arbitration