Ros’ Haruo wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:53:56 +0200 From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia page protection report
[...]
This is only true if there is no social norm forbidding a sysop to edit a protected page. At least, on the english and french wikipedia, I do think the rule of no-edit on a protected page exist.
As an example of a minor edit that was allowed, during the recent brouhaha over Pat Robertson's suggestion that Hugo Chávez be assassinated, the English "Pat Robertson" article was protected, but a sysop there implemented my request that a link to the corresponding Esperanto article be added to the set of interwikis.
Haruo
Absolutely, but the edit was probably uncontroversial, and since you (a non sysop I presume) asked for it to be done, and had it done by a "sysop", it still let the sysop in the "janitor" role. The day he refuses to do this uncontroversial job for you, then the sysop is no more a "janitor" but a boss. And we will be in trouble :-(
In all honesty, I think that in the great majority of cases, there is no abuse from sysops, and most are more than happy to add the uncontroversial edits to the protected articles upon request.
If some sysops do not respect this, they should maybe have a time-off sysophood to remember how it is not to be a sysop. Imho
Ant