--- Lee Pilich pilich@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