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