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 ;-) ).
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.
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.
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.
--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. I
wouldn't know in advance who would respond. The second person to agree
(unless someone disagrees) would perform the lock.
In the case of disagreement, I would say that the "leave unlocked"
should prevail.
As I said, I know it's a bit complex, but I think it or something like
it would be a good idea.
Jules