(Note: intlwiki-l is supposed to be about issues relating specifically to internationalization, but I know that some people on intlwiki-l may not read wikipedia-l. I've set the reply-to on this message to wikipedia-l, because this is really a global policy issue that should be discussed there, but I've included intlwiki-l, because I want to reach those people as well.)
To the present day, we have been operating under a 'benevolent dictator' model as regards governance issues generally, and in particular issues relating to suspension of editing privileges for those who can't seem to co-operate with others.
This has worked reasonably well (depending on who you ask, I guess) on the English wikipedia, because I have spent a lot of time doing investigations into controversial people, and have been willing to "take the heat" for the few bans that we've had to implement.
But that model doesn't work nearly so well for other languages, primarily because I'm not able to read the direct controversies, and so I have to rely on testimony from people who are arguing, and what actually ends up happening is that whoever is most fluent in English ends up carrying the day by presenting their side of the dispute.
We have just begun a process on en of formalizing the decision procedures for banning people, through the use of two committees of volunteers. The first "line of defense" is a mediation committee, which attempts to work with parties to find a mutually agreeable solution to a problem. This committee has no power to ban or to do anything other than act as an outside recommendation for a solution.
The second "line of defense" is the arbitration committee, which will be tasked with the difficult and painful and regrettable task of banning someone from editing.
This is mainly an experiment, and we shall see over time how it works out. I hope it works well.
I would like to encourage a similar setup on the larger non-English wikipedias, perhaps customized to some extent to fit localized needs. But the overall concept is to have in place clear methods for group decision making that are respectful of our overall ideals.
On the English wikipedia, this was not necessary until now, but on the other wikipedias I think that it is necessary sooner because there is no real way for me to be an effective benevolent dictator.
So, let's discuss this.
--Jimbo