<DIV>I vote for admins to have the authority to temp-ban any user.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RickK<BR><BR><B><I>"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Erik (Eloquence) has called for a 'return to vigilantism'. I oppose<BR>this. Let's vote.<BR><BR>How many people want admins to have the Authority to temp-ban any user<BR>who (in their opinion) has violated a community rule? (Confession: This<BR>is precisely what I did myself with Wik a couple of weeks ago, so there<BR>is, er, "blood on my hands").<BR><BR>How many people want to decisions on banning (except for clear-cut<BR>"simple vandalism" or "emergencies") to be handled Only By The<BR>Arbitration Committee?<BR><BR>1. Please clarify whether you agree that these are the two alternatives.<BR>2. Please indicate which alternative you want.<BR><BR>If enough of us on the mailing list have strong feelings about this, I<BR>will create a policy polling page on the English Wikipedia, and we can<BR>see if a consensus develops that merits a change in policy.<BR><BR>Ed Poor, aka Uncle
Ed<BR><BR>P.S. I'm trying to be impartial about this, even though I have an<BR>opinion.<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Get better spam protection with <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools">Yahoo! Mail</a>