The function of an admin in an edit-war situation should be solely to revert to a
previously accepted version, and await talk page consensus, then unprotect.? Admins should
not change an article to what they believe is the talk page consensus, as oftentimes this
involves a great amount of knowledge of exactly how to word a phrase.
Some editors have the mistaken idea that admin editing is the "Stamp of
approval" by Wikipedia, and will promote that version even if it does not reflect an
accurate understanding of consensus. Thus creating bureaucratic entanglements that
suppress instead of enhancing scholarly consensus. Admin actions should be toned down, not
given a carte blanche to make content edits during an edit-war.
From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)googlemail.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 4:21 am
Subject: [WikiEN-l] When an article is in full protection.
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>
Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to
We should not have a type of protection that allows admins to make
*content* changes willy-nilly.
When an article is in full protection, admins should not be making content
changes, except perhaps to revert changes that were the problematic ones in
the first place.
<<Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit
war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.>>
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: