[Wikipedia-l] 'old hand' status

[lcrocker at nupedia.com]

> What's the purpose of the sysop status, then?
> The only reason we had the sysop status originally was that we
> really did need to "delete" some pages, and at that time, our
> delete function was royally destructive, i.e. it deleted the page
> and all the history. So it was too powerful to have people using
> it indiscriminately.  But we wanted to let a few people use it,
> because it really was useful.
> Now, if the delete is no longer destructive in that way, i.e. if
> there's a way to ordinary users to revive a deleted page, then we
> don't really need sysop status except for "old hand" type of
> functions.

Delete is still every bit as destructive and permanent.  The only 
history of deleted pages will be in periodic database dumps.  (I've 
only done two since the new server was in place, and I still don't 
have a cron job for it--I need to get some indication of how you plan 
to archive them, if you do, before I can do that).

> The main role that the Cunctator has taken for himself here is very
> much appreciated by me...  I think that a big part of our success is
> openness and non-cabalism.  Social pressure works better than the
> iron rule of code.

I'm all for "openness" in making information available to people, and 
letting people add their own. But I utterly reject the idea that one 
can deal with malicious, destructive people without some means of 
self-defense; and such people do, and will continue to, exist.  I 
don't think it's too bad an idea for "edit protected pages" and "move 
page function" to be open to logged in users, but it does make me a 
little nervous.  But "delete" should definitely be locked down, and 
block/unblock IP.

Here's another suggestion, and one that would be easier to implement: 
instead of just "logged in" being the criterion, how about "logged 
in, and with an apparently valid e-mail address" (and I'll get 
cracking on that "e-mail user" function).