I'm not apologizing. My protection of the page was justified. It received support beforehand and I have since noticed that it has been defended.
BTW, this comment on the mailing list by Jimmy Wales seems to support my action: "Sysops should generally not edit a page that has been protected due to
a dispute, whether or not they were involved in the edit war to start
with. I say "generally not" because of course there can be
exceptions, for example rolling back to a version before the edit war
might be useful in some cases, or attempting a one-shot temporary
compromise."
What I did followed the guidelines, according to the exceptions Mr. Wales explained above. My edits only rolled back to a version before the edit war, the version without the incoherent, poorly written essay. Before the edit war, I had not even read the page, let alone edit it.
When my sysop privileges are reinstated, I promise to continue following the protected page guidelines.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
--- Abe Sokolov sokolov47@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm not apologizing. My protection of the page was justified. It received support beforehand and I have since noticed that it has been defended.
BTW, this comment on the mailing list by Jimmy Wales seems to support my action: "Sysops should generally not edit a page that has been protected due to
a dispute, whether or not they were involved in the edit war to start
with. I say "generally not" because of course there can be
exceptions, for example rolling back to a version before the edit war
might be useful in some cases, or attempting a one-shot temporary
compromise."
Cp of what I put on Erik page
:Sorry 172. But what you did was neither reverting to a version *previous* to the edit war (which was 51 edits ago [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Catholicism&oldid=1178359]) nor an attempt in compromise in any way (since it just consisted in reverting all the other editor edits). What you did was not following these two guidelines Jimbo mentionned. Don't try to mislead us here please. We can all make mistakes from time to time. Especially in an edit war with heated spirits. That is no big deal in the end.[[user:Anthere]]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Well, Abe, the only concern is that the exception I outlined only applies to sysops who legitimately step in to protect a page in the first place.
The decision tree looks like this:
Q1. Have I been involved in the edit war?
A1. Yes --> don't protect the page, and it's probably best to let the other person win for today to end the edit war, and if the remaining participants keep having an edit war, ask another uninvolved sysop to protect the page.
A2. No --> protect the page, proceed to Q2.
Q2. Is there some edit that needs to be urgently made to fix the page, or is there some very cautious thing I could do that's likely to help for now?
A2. Cautiously make the edit.
Abe Sokolov wrote:
I'm not apologizing. My protection of the page was justified. It received support beforehand and I have since noticed that it has been defended.
BTW, this comment on the mailing list by Jimmy Wales seems to support my action: "Sysops should generally not edit a page that has been protected due to
a dispute, whether or not they were involved in the edit war to start
with. I say "generally not" because of course there can be
exceptions, for example rolling back to a version before the edit war
might be useful in some cases, or attempting a one-shot temporary
compromise."
What I did followed the guidelines, according to the exceptions Mr. Wales explained above. My edits only rolled back to a version before the edit war, the version without the incoherent, poorly written essay. Before the edit war, I had not even read the page, let alone edit it.
When my sysop privileges are reinstated, I promise to continue following the protected page guidelines.
Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!