No subject

problems than they prevent. Better is case-by-case action, with
justification necessary. The establishment of common law based on precedent,
if you will.

> --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.

I'd just say we should never lock such articles. That makes the
decision-making process much easier.