We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore. Unprotecting a page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it to your point, comes to mind. Marking contentious changes as minor also comes to mind. The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop authority taken away. OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a nonsense article. Where is the reciprocity? RickK The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote: On 11/26/03 5:06 PM, "Martin Harper" wrote: If by "the code" you mean the "code of behavior", then yes. This is a situation where the solution is not primarily technological, but social. Of course, as Lessig discussed, it's a fallacy to believe that the two kinds of code (legal and machine) are wholly distinct. Fortunately, most of the necessary tools necessary for solving the bad entry problem have now been developed: stub indicators, the "restore deleted edits" option, the deletion log (though that needs to have a more friendly interface). Now the problem is primarily behavioral, which can be fixed through "legal" code. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly "equally guilty" opponents. -Fuzheado

"Likely"? So, in other words, you're talking out of your hat, because you have no evidence to support your contention. RickK Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Andrew Lih wrote: Refer to the same articles. If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the first place. Ec . _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

Ray Saintonge wrote: been My problem with this is you are suggesting that the two actions are equivalent. When an article has been protected, it's normally because there's been an edit war on that article. This is normal procedure, and what seems to have been done here. The normal Wikipedia convention / etiquette is that then all parties to the edit war should calm the hell down and discuss things more rationally instead of continuing the war. It seems to be generally be accepted protocol that at that point, none of the participants should edit the article until an uninvolved third party decides that sensible discourse has prevailed and unblocks the page. One of the participants in an edit war using their sysop powers to ignore article protection has generally been considered bad form indeed. This is what The Cunctator has been accused of. Certainly, others may have behaved badly -- but I don't see any signs of anyone else doing something considered 'abuse of sysop privileges', which is generally considered more serious than engaging in an edit war. If you're going to allege that others have also abused their privileges, be specific. -Morven