[Wikipedia-l] [Note: Obscene language on Tsunami Article]

Fri Jan 7 15:17:27 UTC 2005

Stirling Newberry wrote:
> What about merely having a logged in user force publication? If a login 
> repeatedly forces vandalizations in, then that would be grounds for 
> banning.

If a login even *once* vandalizes or forces a vandalization through,
then that's grounds for immediate banning, I would say.  In some cases
of course good judgment is necessary (was it really vandalism, or just
sandboxing by a new user?) but the kinds of cases I'm talking about
are just goofy.  (Replacing George Bush's photo with Hitler is good
for a 3rd grade laugh, but, *ahem*, people are trying to do something
useful around here. :-))

> In many CMS's there is the concept of a "trusted user", who has 
> privileges to do such things, but is far from being a sysop. It might 
> well be worth looking at a similar idea for wikipedia - which would 
> allow such "judgment calls" to be made by users who have put the time 
> in on wikipedia, but who aren't interested in, and do not need, full 
> sysop privileges.

Agreed.  I think this makes perfect sense.  It does mean that a vandal
can still force through vandalism now and again, but it is more clicks
for them to do it, and anyway this option is "softer" and therefore
should be tried first.  The harder option of restricting 'force
publication' to sysops would still be available at a later date.

--Jimbo