[WikiEN-l] A compromise proposal for the Plautus issue

[mapellegrini at comcast.net]

Nobody is really debating that Plautus is a known vandal, that's a given by now. The only quesiton is what to do with him now. I'd like to offer a compromise. 

Those of us aligned squarely in the 
ban-him camp want him banned permanently and immediately. We feel that 
Ed's noble efforts to reform him are doomed (if not already so  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado - "I feel you abused my trust, 
Ed Poor, and for that reason you are not likely to get it again in the future."). 
We are not willing to sit around waiting for the arbitration committee to get its 
act together (however long that might be) while he is free to 
vandalize articles and cause grief to other contributors. 

By the same token, there are others who feel that vigilantism/unilaterialism is 
bad; that the dispute resolution guidelines are worthless if we don't follow them. 
This is also a very valid point. 

I think both sides can be placated. I propose that we ban him, until such time
as the arbitration committee can get together and render a verdict. This would 
remove much of the urgency from the issue. The arbitration commitee would be free
to go at whatever pace they want. 

I think this is a fair way of giving both sides what they want. In legal terms, 
think of it an emergency injunction. He'll get his due process, we in the community
will be protected from a known vandal. 

--Mark Pellegrini
User:Raul654

PS: Jimbo, I didn't mean to give people the impression I was quoting you - I apologize. I was actually quoting Erik/Eloquence.