Anthere wrote:
Now, the question is (and that is a very good
question) : should
sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide
for them ?
As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops
to act temporarily, before the AC does.
Is it good ?
*yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to
see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC.
It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is
similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something
deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he
may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in
jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked
person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people
first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.
I agree with this. Perhaps if we had an AC filled with lots of paid
employees or people with no other non-Wikipedia commitments it'd be
better to have a dedicated investigative team to decide these things,
but that seems pretty far-fetched. I think reaching a consensus on
whether the user is a reincarnation, (the wiki way, as you aptly
described it) is a better approach. I'm not sure if this should be
formalized or left sort of informal, but the general guideline would be
that if a pretty large majority seem to think it's a reincarnation, we
should assume it is, while if there is widespread disagreement, then
perhaps we can't assume it is.
-Mark