[Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in

Mon Nov 11 23:19:17 UTC 2002

--- Tokerboy (Tucci <tucci528 at 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 at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2