I just wanted to check, if somewhat belatedly, that this wouldn't be considered an abuse of sysop abilities, if I protect one of my own subpages. Taken strictly, it would break the rules, but I don't think it would break the spirit of them at all.
Also, while I'm at it, I wasn't sure about an edit I did earlier on [[Johnny Rebel]] while it was protected. It was just a simple typo correction, "Moustrap" -> "Mousetrap". Is that kind of controversy-free thing OK while it's protected, or should it be completely avoided to prevent even the appearance of possible abuse? I just can't stand seeing misspellings left alone, though. :( Side note: It's so bad, since I started doing Wikipedia fairly regularly, I find myself frequently looking for an "Edit this page" link while I'm on other, non-wiki sites and I see an error. ;)
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 00:04, John R. Owens wrote:
I just wanted to check, if somewhat belatedly, that this wouldn't be considered an abuse of sysop abilities, if I protect one of my own subpages. Taken strictly, it would break the rules, but I don't think it would break the spirit of them at all.
The obvious question is: why would you want to do that? What benefit will it bring you to prevent your neighbors from editing that page? Is there some reason that other people possibly editing this mysterious unnamed page would be harmful?
Protecting a page without a pressing technical or 'wikipedia national security' need is Seriously Un-Wiki Bad Mojo; expect it to get un-protected and to receive dirty looks from passers-by if anyone notices you've done it. ;)
It very very much violates the spirit of the rules; locking of pages is a technical remedy meant for very rare emergency cases; it isn't something you do because they're "your" pages and you don't want other people to touch them. Subpages of your user page (like your user page itself) are "socially" in your space, but it's a friendly, neighborly, open space into which you invite your neighbors to play in if they're interested. There's no picket fence with a locked gateway, and certainly no razor wire and guard dogs or "no tresspassing" sign.
Of course, if a persistent vandal has been tromping all over one of "your" subpages, then it probably makes sense to protect it. (But better if you don't keep editing it during that period.)
Also, while I'm at it, I wasn't sure about an edit I did earlier on [[Johnny Rebel]] while it was protected. It was just a simple typo correction, "Moustrap" -> "Mousetrap". Is that kind of controversy-free thing OK while it's protected, or should it be completely avoided to prevent even the appearance of possible abuse?
I've got no real objection to fixing typos I guess, unless typos are the subject of controversy. ;)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 30 Apr 2003, Brion Vibber wrote:
Date: 30 Apr 2003 01:14:20 -0700 From: Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sysop limits
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 00:04, John R. Owens wrote:
I just wanted to check, if somewhat belatedly, that this wouldn't be considered an abuse of sysop abilities, if I protect one of my own subpages. Taken strictly, it would break the rules, but I don't think it would break the spirit of them at all.
The obvious question is: why would you want to do that? What benefit will it bring you to prevent your neighbors from editing that page? Is there some reason that other people possibly editing this mysterious unnamed page would be harmful?
Protecting a page without a pressing technical or 'wikipedia national security' need is Seriously Un-Wiki Bad Mojo; expect it to get un-protected and to receive dirty looks from passers-by if anyone notices you've done it. ;)
It very very much violates the spirit of the rules; locking of pages is a technical remedy meant for very rare emergency cases; it isn't something you do because they're "your" pages and you don't want other people to touch them. Subpages of your user page (like your user page itself) are "socially" in your space, but it's a friendly, neighborly, open space into which you invite your neighbors to play in if they're interested. There's no picket fence with a locked gateway, and certainly no razor wire and guard dogs or "no tresspassing" sign.
Of course, if a persistent vandal has been tromping all over one of "your" subpages, then it probably makes sense to protect it. (But better if you don't keep editing it during that period.)
Hmm, definite grey area. It's a list of links to persistent vandal and potential vandal User:, User_talk:, & contributions pages that I was referring to. So while it hasn't come up on any vandal's radar screen yet, I would like to know that none of them have been altering the contents without needing to check the history each time, or anything like that. And yes, of course I've already added it to my watchlist.
John R. Owens wrote:
I just wanted to check, if somewhat belatedly, that this wouldn't be considered an abuse of sysop abilities, if I protect one of my own subpages. Taken strictly, it would break the rules, but I don't think it would break the spirit of them at all.
It seems like a very minor issue to me, but I'm curious as to why you want to do it. Is there a problem with someone trying to vandalize the page or something? If not, the wiki way is to just relax and trust people not to screw with your page. :-)
Also, while I'm at it, I wasn't sure about an edit I did earlier on [[Johnny Rebel]] while it was protected. It was just a simple typo correction, "Moustrap" -> "Mousetrap". Is that kind of controversy-free thing OK while it's protected, or should it be completely avoided to prevent even the appearance of possible abuse? I just can't stand seeing misspellings left alone, though. :(
I have no strong opinion about this. The pro's and con's a pretty obvious, and you've spelled them out pretty well.
--Jimbo