--- Lee Pilich <pilich(a)btopenworld.com> wrote:
I don't really want to write about this, but feel
I
ought to as it hasn't
been mentioned on the list yet: before 172 protected
[[Catholicism]] he had
protected [[New Imperialism]], a page he is very
definitely involved with,
and also protected [[Talk:New Imperialism]]. I
unprotected both as soon as
I became aware of this and told 172 that protecting
pages one is involved
in is a Bad Thing, and that protecting talk pages is
almost never right (I
acknowledge I may not have been a model of
politeness in how I put this,
but I don't think I was actually rude - still, I
should have been more
restrained, I admit). As far as I know, he then left
them unprotected.
Everything an editor can do, can be undone by another
editor.
There are some rules and guidelines an editor is
supposed to respect.
Most try to respect these guidelines (but some do not
respect them to the point).
Most do infringe them from time to time. Everyone has
once wrote something pov, been short of temper with
another editor, giving a bad title to an article,
whatever.
When an editor is wrong, he is corrected by other
editors, that is the wiki way, and no one thinks it is
bad to point out to mistakes, no one thinks it is bad
to correct mistakes for the one who diverted from the
"right" path.
When an editor is *repeatingly* wrong, s/he may
receive a warning, perhaps be listed in annoying
users, or even on the vandal list, and no one thinks
it is bad to do so
When the editor is really acting wrong, with facts
supporting the wrongness, s/he is denied editing,
Jimbo bans hir (I am learning). The ban is a stronger
warning.
When the editor is given another chance, because s/he
is thought a good editor nevertheless, who a couple of
times diverted from the righteous path, s/he may edit
again, but is carefully watched by other editors.
Other editors know s/he has an history of
reprenhensible acts, but they would be happy of a
reform. Hence, they put hir on a sort of a "watch
list".
Everything an editor can do, can be undone by another
editor, as long as another editor is taking care of
watching for bad step. That is just the wiki way.
Taking any relevant action to guide the foot (and
perhaps strongly grip the foot sometimes) is good.
Everything a sysop can do, can be undone by another
sysop.
There are some rules and guidelines a sysop is
supposed to respect.
Most try to respect these guidelines (but some do not
respect them to the point).
Some do infringe them from time to time. Everyone has
once protected a page while included in the edit war,
protected a talk page to prevent another editor to
explain moves, banned an ip a bit too quickly, deleted
an article for personal grunge against another editor,
undeleted an article upon a poor choice, made a bad
sql query which stop the server for a couple of hours,
whatever.
When a sysop is wrong, he is corrected by other sysop,
that is the wiki way, and who thinks it is bad to
point out to mistakes, no one thinks it is bad to
correct mistakes for the one who diverted from the
"right" path ?
When a sysop is *repeatingly* wrong, s/he may receive
a warning, perhaps have hir case discussed on the
mailing list, be on some sysop "watch this guy" list.
Is it bad to do so ?
When the sysop is really acting wrong, with facts
supporting the wrongness, s/he is denied sysop
position, a developer remove the rights. The
unsysoping is a stronger warning.
When the sysop is given another chance, because s/he
is thought a good sysop nevertheless, who a couple of
times diverted from the righteous path, s/he may
protect/delete/ban again, but is carefully watched by
other editors. Other editors know s/he has an history
of reprenhensible acts, but they would be happy of a
reform. Hence, they put hir on a sort of a "watch
list".
Everything a sysop can do, can be undone by another
sysop, as long as another editor is taking care of
watching for bad step. Especially when a non-sysop is
involved. That is just the wiki way. Taking any
relevant action to guide the foot (and perhaps
strongly grip the foot sometimes) is good. Especially
when a non sysop is involved.
This was not necessary when there were only a couple
of sysops. But 100 sysops make a difference. One can
trust a sysop to be willing to do the best for the
encyclopedia, that does not necessarily imply one has
to agree the path chosen is the best. The more sysops
there will be, the more likely edit wars among sysops,
and the less relevant protection will be.
In any case, that is my personal feeling :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com