[WikiEN-l] "Community sanctions"

[George Herbert]

On 11/17/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:58:30 +0000, "Sam Korn" <smoddy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think this is a pretty awful idea.  This is an extrapolation of the
> >concept of a community ban that has no basis in logic.  The concept
> >behind a "community ban" is not "rough consensus", as shown by an 80%
> >vote or whatever exists nowadays, but unanimity among admins -- not
> >one admin out of >1000 being prepared to unblock you.  People seem to
> >have got hold of the idea that a "rough consensus" is good enough
> >here.  It isn't.  An ArbCom case is needed when there isn't unanimity
> >among the community.
>
> The problem is that ArbCom cases go on for months, during which the
> disruption continues.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG



There exists the "urgent motions" section of Arbcom proceedings, which
almost never seems to get used.

I have seen Arb case parties community blocked during the case, though they
often are then unblocked to allow them to participate in the ArbCom case
proceedings.




-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com