Ros’ Haruo wrote:
Date: Wed, 14
Sep 2005 18:53:56 +0200
From: Anthere <anthere9(a)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.
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