--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
From: "Anthere" anthere6@yahoo.com
I fear very much, that just because people were
given
technological tools to fight against very very
very
problematic users such as Michael, we will go
solving
issues that are not dramatic by just quietly
saying
"If no one speaks against, in 24 hours, I hit the button". And accumulate in a short time, far more banning than there ever was since the beginning of
the
project, under the benevolent rule of Jimbo (was
that
enough ? :-)).
24 hours is a very short time in the world of entitlement decision-making. While there may be some merit to the argument that swift action is needed, such a drastic action should entail some kind of discussion process allowing for some "reasonable period" of input from various volunteers, including the opportunity for those providing input to revise their vote (since it is a transparent process people should be allowed to change their minds if the discussion demonstrates the alternate decision, that shows that there is merit to this kind of wiki based decisionmaking process and it validates an fundamental advantage of using the wiki as social software in the development of the Association of Wikipedians (not to be confused with the Wikimedia Foundation).
Alex756
What are you talking about? I think that the process is too bureaucratic. It usually takes 2 weeks to a month to ban someone. EntmootOfTrolls was discussed atleast 2 weeks ago, maybe before that. Same with BudhaInside. And those people haven't even been banned yet.
I am, however, worried about the trigger-finger banning of anonymous users. These vandalizations (unless they're trolls) are almost always a one-time thing. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com