Ed,

Unilateral action is the problem, so no unilateral approach should be chosen. Instead, look to the example of the temporary desysopping of 168. There, the matter was raised and brought to #wikipedia. While the problem was ongoing the community there and those who saw the straw poll quickly rapidly concluded that the behavior merited temporary desysopping and used the poll, at Tim's request, to assure Tim that there was widespread support and little opposition to it. Tim then acted.

What we need is to formalise some sort of quick consensus-taking system, so we can assure ourselves and the community that it is not a unilateral act but rather is something which has been discussed first.

We also don't need permanent bliocks. All we care about is behavior. If blocking for 24 hours does the job, that's all we should use until we see that the problematic behavior is repeated. At that point, the previously agreed block can be used again, until either the problematic behavior ends or the matter has been resolved through mediation or arbitration.

So, I propose: a bell-ringer page all who want to be aware of these can monitor, named in all upper case so it really stands out. If some situation merits considering a temporary block, edit the page once, identify the account which is meriting the concern and point to the location of the straw poll being used to confirm that this is a widely supported temporary action, rather than unilateral disagreement and inapproriate action.

Then have that straw poll and use something around majority of five, majority of 80% in favor. Fail to meet those thresholds and it's clear that there's at least some potential that another approach is best. If it ever falls below those thresholds, remove it immediately.

At that point, we'll have protected the community effectively and rapidly, without giving rise to too many concerns about personal bias and inappropriate action based on it. That should suffice to allow the mediation and arbitration committees to take the time they need to take to properly consider longer term action, while still aleviating any problems which arise while carrying out that process.

It's pretty easy to get at least five people agreeing that some behavior is clearly over the line, if it is. Paying a visit to #wikipedia and asking is the fastest way. That's also where I rapidly found that there was broad agreement against that recent ban of yours and joined secretlondon in reversing it, reassured that I was acting properly by that discussion.