[WikiEN-l] 172--what happened

[Graham Burnett]

> Message: 10
> Date: 01 Apr 2003 18:50:00 +0200
> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172--what happened
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>
> > Danny did nothing wrong. I intend to follow his example.
>
> > If I see people fighting over an article, I'm going to protect it and
tell
> > them to chill out.
>
> > AND I reserve the right to choose which "old version" to revert to.
>
> Obviously, you have to do this.
>
> > AND FURTHERMORE, if I can figure out a neutral way to fix the article, I
see
> > no ethical reason not to:
> > * make ONE edit
>
> No, this violates the sysop/editor distinction. Please don't do that. By
> making an edit and subsequently protecting it, you are giving it a raised
> status. This is entirely unacceptable.

This was the point I was trying to make when I commented at the village pump
about this situation- I didn't want to phrase as strongly that I thought
Danny was abusing sysop powers, but as a non-sysop, it did seem this way to
me. I only happened to pick up on the fact that the page was protected when
I wanted to make an edit myself when I spotted a minor typo not related to
the edit war that was going on. I realised that the page was protected, and
was quite surprised to see two further edits made by sysops before the page
became unprotected again (granted one was a revert to pre-edit war state).

I take on board what Danny & others are saying about vandalism, POV, etc,
but they have to in turn take on board how things look to 'the great
unwashed' of us non-sysops. There are enough people out there who are
already grumbling about there being two tiers of editorial priviledge, I
think sysops therefore need to be 'above reproach' as it were with regard to
this sort of matter.

Just my fourpennorth, I'll go back to sleep now,

Graham (Quercus Robur)