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