I don't necessarily oppose the principle of giving
sysops more power to act quickly, but if this is
given, it must be with more opportunity for the
community to review those decisions. Kind of a
retroactive Votes for Deletion if you like.
For example, if you quickly delete a page, and ban a
user in a way that is not currently supported by
policy, your action should be listed for a week for
people to comment on, and reviewed if necessary.
Mark
--- daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
I have just blocked Yammy Yamathorne for 9999 hours.
I did not go through
Quickpolls. I have no regrets.
This user created a page, [[The Lyceum]], based on
the [[Akhmad Kadyrov]]
page, in which he claimed that the "super smart
kids" in his school are planning
to bring down Wikipedia. The page itself was an act
of vandalism, and I have
deleted it (without going through Speedy Deletions).
This is an increasing problem here on Wikipedia. As
we grow, we are no longer
able to monitor the Recent Changes adequately. If I
recall correctly, Horace
had been vandalized for two weeks recently before
someone noticed.
I am proposing the following radical solutions:
1. Empower sysops to make on-the-spot decisions and
act accordingly. If most
people don't trust them to act wisely, they should
not be sysops.
2. Reinvigorate Seth Ilys's New Pages Patrol and
expand it to include Recent
Changes in general. Lots of crap is getting through,
as well as considerable
the duplication of articles.
3. Stiffen penalties. If a group of people (like a
school) are planning to
damage Wikipedia, it will last longer than 24 hours.
4. Act quickly and decisively with POV pushers. I
recently received an email
from a colleague at work, that was forwarded to her.
Someone posted to a
professional mailing list, asking them to join
Wikipedia en masse to ensure that
certain articles maintain their point of view. Their
POV is often close to my
own, however, I am disturbed that a group can
potentially band together to push
a particular POV, regardless of what it is. At one
point, such a group will
succeed. (I have forwarded the email to Jimbo, but
will say no more about it to
protect the confidence of my colleague).
5. Put together a SMALL group of trusted users to
consider ways to redefine
Wikipedia, considering the remarkable growth spurt
we are experiencing. This
can be a blessing, but it can also lead to our
complete collapse. I propose that
Jimbo select the users and oversee the process,
since he is the one person
who is trusted by everyone and whose authority is
(more or less) unchallenged.
Danny
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs