..,.being a couple of thoughts on the differences of approach in general terms.
I totally understand the necessity of restricting users like myself from all editing, including vandalism reversion on a pragmatic level - I can see for example that some may view quality material as 'vandalism' because they disagree with it, and they're crazy people. I am interested in the priorities of users who would disagree with vandalism reversion on a philosophical level - ie. the "you're not wanted, even if you're helping" approach. The corollary of that approach is that the activity moves to email (as it has in my case in a very friendly, happy, useful fashion) - which seems to me to beg the question, why is that ethically a different activity?
Is it?
Further - a short note on Doc.s discussion of opening some of the Arb proceedings - my personal feedback would be that there isn't enough on-wiki communication on record to quickly and easily understand how the arb process has moved forward, from gathering evidence, to considering it, to reaching conclusions. I'd say this is evidenced by the number of unanswered questions / comments here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Private...
I appreciate Guy's willingness to engage there, and personally, I would have sincerely wished to either answer questions from any Arb, or discuss aspects with them.
The 'select committee' system used in the UK - or the US senate committee system could have some useful pointers for structures that could help. Interestingly, here's an example of where a transparent flaw in said system led to some damage to its reputation, and sympathy for an otherwise very (very) unsympathetic character;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Galloway.27s_response
And one to file in the 'it's unlikely anyone will read this far' box - does anyone think that banned users should be able to !vote in things like the Arb elections?
cheers,
PM.