Brion L. VIBBER wrote:

As far as I know, the ability to protect pages from edits by non-sysop users was added to protect against frequent vandalism of the main page. Is it appropriate to be using this ability in a content war, for example [[Reciprocal System of Theory]]?

No! That's very unwiki. Very Very un-Wiki.

I just now unprotected it.

I looks like maveric149 protected the page. I'm tempted to remove your sysop status, mav. But I don't want this to be a big fight or anything. Let's just not do this.

The only reason we have sysop status is (a) to gently counter some kinds of vandalism and (b) allow users who 'know the ropes' to do some technical things that are a bit too dangerous to leave open to everyone.

Protecting pages over the long haul, like the front page for example, should be based on the particular high profile of that particular page, and verified instances of abuse. (Someone was putting penis pictures on the home page, ha ha, not so funny, so we had to lock it away from anyone who isn't a known face.)

Protecting pages in a crisis would be fine, like if some jerk is going through seriously vandalizing the site. Banning would be o.k. at that time, too.

But the single central principle that we have to adhere to, as sysops, is that our "sysop jobs" are totally separate from our "participation jobs". This is the heart and soul of the wiki, the willingness to meet on a level playing field and try hard, HARD, to find a way to peacefully present the information in a way that's satisfactory to everyone.

The biggest temptation will be in cases like this -- belligerent defense by an unknown person of what appears to be kooky ideas. I haven't actually read the disputed material in detail yet, but I get the gist of what's going on.

I'm sympathetic, but we have a code of honor that we need to follow.

--Jimbo