In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sinewave@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
Why do you say "non-sysop" ? Are you proposing this editing be limited to admins ? If so I'd vigorously oppose.
Will Johnson
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:57, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sinewave@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
Why do you say "non-sysop" ? Are you proposing this editing be limited to admins ?
I'm not proposing this - that email is just my summary of what Jay put forward.
If so I'd vigorously oppose.
I have concerns about it too, but given that the alternative would usually be full protection, it might be the lesser of two evils.
Will Johnson
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No Jonathan, the alternative to admin-only-editing is not full protection. Semi-protection allows established users to edit an article. Established users are not the same as sysops, therefore the rest of the universe isn't non-sysops. I'm not sure what makes one an "established user" exactly, but I'm one, and I'm not an admin.
I would vigorously oppose any attempt to extend yet more editing power to the admin category. Admins are primarily supposed to have powers that affect meta elements, not the source text itself.? At least in a more perfect world.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Hall sinewave@silentflame.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 12:49 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:57, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sinewave@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so ?I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We ?should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP ?that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from ?editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
Why do you say "non-sysop" ? ?Are you proposing this editing be ?limited to admins ?
I'm not proposing this - that email is just my summary of what Jay put forward.
If so I'd vigorously oppose.
I have concerns about it too, but given that the alternative would usually be full protection, it might be the lesser of two evils.
Will Johnson
**************What's for dinner tonight? ?Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:33, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
No Jonathan, the alternative to admin-only-editing is not full protection.
Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.
Semi-protection allows established users to edit an article. Established users are not the same as sysops, therefore the rest of the universe isn't non-sysops. I'm not sure what makes one an "established user" exactly, but I'm one, and I'm not an admin.
I would vigorously oppose any attempt to extend yet more editing power to the admin category. Admins are primarily supposed to have powers that affect meta elements, not the source text itself.? At least in a more perfect world.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Hall sinewave@silentflame.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 12:49 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:57, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sinewave@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so ?I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We ?should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP ?that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from ?editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
Why do you say "non-sysop" ? ?Are you proposing this editing be ?limited to admins ?
I'm not proposing this - that email is just my summary of what Jay put forward.
If so I'd vigorously oppose.
I have concerns about it too, but given that the alternative would usually be full protection, it might be the lesser of two evils.
Will Johnson
**************What's for dinner tonight? ?Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to semi-protection. 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.>>
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Hall sinewave@silentflame.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 2:40 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:33, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
?No Jonathan, the alternative to admin-only-editing is not full protection.
Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.
Semi-protection allows established users to edit an article. Established users are not the same as sysops, therefore the rest of the
universe isn't non-sysops.
I'm not sure what makes one an "established user" exactly, but I'm one, and
I'm not an admin.
I would vigorously oppose any attempt to extend yet more editing power to the
admin category.
Admins are primarily supposed to have powers that affect meta elements, not
the source text itself.? At least in a more perfect world.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Hall sinewave@silentflame.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 12:49 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:57, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sinewave@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so ?I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We ?should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP ?that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from ?editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
Why do you say "non-sysop" ? ?Are you proposing this editing be ?limited to admins ?
I'm not proposing this - that email is just my summary of what Jay put
forward.
If so I'd vigorously oppose.
I have concerns about it too, but given that the alternative would usually be full protection, it might be the lesser of two evils.
Will Johnson
**************What's for dinner tonight? ?Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WJhonson@aol.com wrote in message news:d10.52ec3825.3798bb32@aol.com...
In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sinewave@silentflame.com writes:
OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) is: We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
Why do you say "non-sysop" ? Are you proposing this editing be limited to admins ? If so I'd vigorously oppose.
The group, however moderated in membership, should normally control the flags that allow all to read or write on a page that is as controversial as a living subject. Only in a [[WP:wheel war]], where there was no polling (or where the recording of the poll was not well done) on the talk page, would an admin be stepping in. Note that you could not implement quizes without a control like this, because there would be no way to prevent _everyone_ from reading the answers in the source or the talk page for the bot that did the quiz. It is better if users need to guess which answers they got wrong and inquire of group members about why an answer might be wrong.