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