From: "Anthere" <anthere6(a)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