[WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

Erik wrote: This is unfortunate. Much of the work that I and others have put into the dispute resolution process aims to help in this regard by seeking consensus if possible, votes if necessary, mediation if needed and arbitration as a last resort. Arbitration is normally the last step of a long process (and rightly so, IMO). But I do support the idea of giving admins (and in the case of admin abuse, developers) a greater (yet still limited) ability to act in emergencies and act based on community comment in polls. Polling on items seems to work when a quick decision is needed. Tim did that for 168's first de-sysoping and a poll was also conducted about what to do with Plautus satire. IMO, a developer or admin could perform *temporary* actions based upon the results of such a poll and then the matter could be sent to the arbitration committee if further action is needed. At least that is what I would like to see tried as the new way of doing things. But IMO unilateral actions should really only be exercised in true emergencies (such as very obvious vandalism or an admin going on a rampage). However, any action to enforce an arbitration decision would not be a unilateral act. If the issue is not a true emergency, then a quick poll could be conducted. If more than a supermajority of a minimum number of non-sock puppet users (say 75%+ of at least 15 users polled) vote for an action, then the admin or developer could perform that action. If done correctly, such an act would be based upon the will of the community (as represented by the poll), and *not* look like it was based on the will of the admin/developer. That is an important distinction to me. --Daniel Mayer (aka mav) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com