[WikiEN-l] Re: Ban policy

[Michael Snow]

John Robinson wrote:

>> Are you volunteering to be a member of the AC?
>
> No, I am saying that the concept of an AC has been tried, and does not 
> work.
> I don't consider this to be the fault of the AC or any of the members 
> of it,
> rather a problem with overall structure, confusion with regard to the 
> amount
> of authority it holds, etc. 

I don't see that much confusion about the amount of authority the 
arbitration committee holds, unless you mean that it should start 
engaging in content arbitration as well. Arbitration has resulted in 
bans ranging anywhere from one day to one year, and while some users 
have attempted to evade those bans, I think the authority to impose bans 
is by now generally accepted (albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm).

I believe the arbitration process does work, or at least can work. I am 
concerned that things move too slowly, however. If I thought the problem 
was because of the time needed to discuss and deliberate on a case, I 
wouldn't complain. I realize that arbitration cases are not going to 
produce instantaneous results.

But at least on the surface, it certainly appears that some of the 
arbitrators are not even really participating in the process. When it 
takes four arbitrators to accept a case, and six to issue a decision, 
this is a serious problem. The lack of participation may sometimes be 
due to circumstances beyond their control, and I'm not saying an 
arbitrator is not allowed to go on vacation. But at some point, if the 
absence indicates inability to serve, I think a replacement may be 
necessary. I'm not volunteering to be on the committee either, but all 
of the arbitrators except one *did* volunteer for the job, and if anyone 
is unwilling to continue, they should resign, not just stop participating.

>> 3 non-AC member admins to do such a block
>
> This is a good idea, we've had five already in Trollkien's case, for 
> example.

Actually, as to the specific case of JRR Trollkien, I would suggest that 
we simply require him to explicitly confirm or deny whether he is the 
banned user 24/142.177.../EntmootsOfTrolls, as is widely suspected. So 
far, he won't give a straight answer. Given the evidence suggesting this 
is the same person, I think if he's told that he *must* answer the 
question, and refuses to, that should be enough proof that this is a 
reincarnation. (On the other hand, if he admits it, he could be allowed 
to edit only for the purposes of his arbitration case, if he cares to 
appeal that ban to the arbitration committee.)

--Michael Snow