--- Tokerboy (Tucci tucci528@yahoo.com) wrote:
I think we should divide the controversial powers up ...<
Sysop: delete obviously vandalized articles, delete pages to make way for a move, ban anonymous IPs if necessary. If there is _any doubt_ as to whether a change should be considered vandalism, refer the matter to a moderator.
Moderator: powers of sysop above, but intervenes in edit wars and disagreements if a user or sysop asks (or if the moderator simply sees one developing). The moderator tries to get the situation cooled down, and the argument resolved in one way or another. I'd say the standard for freezing an article is 1: if an actual edit war has erupted and 2: the article should be frozen at the state it was before the war, or with no text at all and a reference to the talk page. I'd also suggest allowing both sides to write an article (or a section) from their POV, and then having one or more moderators combine the two.
I think the term moderator has negative connotations.
If someone does not agree with the moderator's decision, some sort of court should be established where a user can complain about a moderator's actions, and other moderators and/or sysops can discuss the decision and whether or not it was justified.
Arbitration: There should be binding arbitration, just like in what is happening a lot with corporations in the US.
Moderators should be chosen through some sort of anonymous nomination system. Any signed-in user can nominate another user and when a person has been nominated five times (by different users), he can be made a moderator. Alternatively, perhaps a person must be a sysop for a month or two before becoming a moderator.
I think an Arbitrator (don't like the term moderator) should be part of a hierarchy. Logged in users vote, then the top three voted become arbitrator. I would specifically disallow sysops powers for arbitrators. The arbitrator should hand down his/her decision and let a sysop or Jimbo do the actual changes. The claimants should be able to appeal the decision, in which case the other arbitrators will take a look at it ande decide whether to reverse the decision.
I think regardless of the merit of what I propose above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that abuse will not occur.
I agree. And if abuse does occur, a clearly detailed appeals procedure needs to exist.
1:Users have the right to edit any page, except for specifically protected ones or articles temporarily frozen because an edit war was developing.
2:Users have the right to access a forum to complain of abuse of power.
I think I would add that users have a right to speedy and just resolution of conflicts. I would not want the parties to go on a 6-month long flame-war, hum, filibuster before the user could get resolve of his or her issue.
Tokerboy
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2