Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think we already got the answer to that question. Sometimes it's useful to have a benign dictator who can step in and say "cut it out."
The danger of course is that the benign dictator may turn out to be biased or wrong himself. So I hestitate to do this except in cases where speed is of essence, or where it's just very clearcut and easy. What I prefer is that I can act as a temporary bridge and "person to blame" while we work on community solutions.
If 300 NeoNazis show up and start doing serious damage to a bunch of articles, we don't need to have 300 separate ArbCom cases and a nightmare that drags on for weeks. I'll just do something to lock those articles down somehow, ban a bunch of people, and protect our reputation and integrity. And then we can also work in parallel to think about the best way to really take care of such problems in the long run.
But if a handful of LaRouche fans want to come in and do pseudo-NPOV on a handful of relatively obscure articles, I'm not in favor of me just cracking heads over it. We can't just ignore it and hope it goes away, either, of course. We just start thinking about it and working on it until we come up with something useful.
We're really smart, but we are also really *thoughtful* as a community. That's wonderful, and me asking too quickly as constitutional monarch is not helpful to preserving those values.
But really, we need not fear a massive NeoNazi attack, either. Because I *will* authorize a quick change of policy if needed.
--Jimbo