<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4630.0">
<TITLE>Re: Moves, sysops, and old hands</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS">Tim mentioned a wariness about old hands abusing sysop rights, and I agree this is a possibility. On the other hand, there are currently a bunch of old hands who DO have sysop rights, and I'm not sure I'd say anyone has -- although there have been a couple of instances where people on this list have questioned the actions of others. I think that's good, and helps keep everybody more objective. Here's my take (not that you asked, but you all know me ;-) ).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS">1. An automatic thing to give rights would be great, Lee. As long as it's limited to people who consistently log in and contribute. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS">2. if this is put into place, I would also suggest that anyone who qualifies (consistent contributions WHILE LOGGED IN over x amount of time) get a pop-up informing them that they can have these rights, and need only sign onto this list to turn them on. This will keep people who really don't care to become that involved a way to opt out, and will ensure that people who do want the rights also take the time become a bit more involved.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS">3. I think there should be some guidelines (for people, not the system) for use of IP blocking, page locking, etc. For example, I suggest that, in cases of clear and immediate vandalism control, IPs should be blockable based on one sysop's judgement. In cases of edit wars, or where the sysop is actually involved, I think that a note should go to the list asking for review and get two other sysops to agree there's a problem -- and have one of them do the locking. I know this is more complicated, but 1) it might help keep abuses from happening in the heat of debate, and 2) it should help prevent the appearance of an evil cadre, militia, cabal, etc.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS">--In response to the obvious question, Cunc (because I know you worry about this type of thing), my assumption is that it would work this way. I would be involved in (or witness -- I wouldn't feel comfortable locking a page without consulting anyway, but that's just me) an interminable edit war. I would say to myself, "Self, I can see no contributions here, only angry reversions, I think this should be locked till tempers cool and people have something constructive to offer." I would then write a note to the list "Attention sysops: there is a flame/edit/revert war going on at article x. I think it needs locking for a bit. What do you think?" Then, I would wait to see responses. <B> I wouldn't know in advance who would respond</B>. The second person to agree (unless someone disagrees) would perform the lock. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS">In the case of disagreement, I would say that the "leave unlocked" should prevail.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008000" FACE="Comic Sans MS"> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008080" FACE="Comic Sans MS">As I said, I know it's a bit complex, but I think it or something like it would be a good idea. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#008080" FACE="Comic Sans MS">Jules</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>