[WikiEN-l] page protection policy

[Pierre Hentges]

SV is right that the current policy on page protection 
isn't great. Pages are often protected for a long time 
without any progress on the actual conflict. For example 
[[anti-American sentiment]] has been protected for nearly 
two weeks without VV and GBWR making the slightest effort 
to resolve their dispute, despite me trying to help. It's 
very frustrating for everybody else. The current policy 
just isn't conducive to conlict resolution. 
 
SV's proposal is interesting but I think there are 
drawbacks: quite substantial changes are required, admins 
workload will go up ; there is no justification for the 
assumption that admins can deal with edit conflicts better 
than common Wikipedians 
 
I'd like to make an alternative proposal for dealing with 
page protection: 
 
1) in case of an edit war the page in question is protected 
as before. Then the following steps are taken: 
2) the admin who protected the page makes a list (on the 
talk page) of the editors involved in the edit conflict ; 
3) the named editors each outline their view of the 
disagreement (talk page) ; 
4) the named editors (with the help of fellow Wikipedians 
if this is helpful) try to hammer out a compromise ; 
5) if no compromise can be found within a week, this is 
taken as proof that they are unable to resolve their 
conflict. Therefore the page is unprotected but the listed 
editors are banned from editing the article in question for 
a period of, say, a month. Editors that were not involved 
in the edit conflict can edit the article and get a chance 
to deal with the controversial points ; 
6) Since this system could be abused by people who raise 
spurious conflicts just to get other editors banned from an 
article, there is need for a further step: if one of the 
editors feels their opponent is acting in bad faith, they 
can ask for a vote on this, and if there is a consensus 
(say 3/4) then their ban is lifted. 
 
pros: 
===== 
1) nobody wants to get banned from an article they are 
interested in, therefore Wikipedians will try to avoid edit 
wars ; willingness to compromise and to be civil will 
increase ; 
2) a more formal way of dealing with edit conflicts ; 
3) no big changes required (software, new sysop roles 
etc.) ; 
4) Wikipedians who avoid edit wars don't get shut out of 
protected articles for long periods ; 
5) the workload of admins stays the same 
 
cons: 
===== 
1) protection policy change  
2) ?? 
 
I'll copy this to the PPP draft page. 
 
pir 
 
On Friday 23 July 2004 12:04, 
wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote: 
> Message: 6 
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:14:11 -0700 (PDT) 
> From: "S. Vertigo" <sewev at yahoo.com> 
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Protected page policy rethuk 
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org 
> Message-ID: 
<20040723051411.84168.qmail at web90005.mail.scd.yahoo.com> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 
> 
> ...Wikipedia RC seems to be zipping by quite fast 
> lately. (Its already impossible to just scan RC as a 
> way to catch up; Im actually using my watchlist for 
> the first time...) But it seems that with the 
> controversial set, its time for a rethinking of the 
> protected page policy, and Ive written some basic 
> stuff here 
> 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page/Draft]] 
> 
> Basically, my idea calls for sort of dance steps to 
> how to deal with contested articles. Essentially, 
> allowing certain sysops to act according to formal 
> roles with respect to each contested article, and to 
> have those articles be protected in degrees, based on 
> what the situation calls for. Protection is 
> degree-less, but sysops can and should act responsibly 
> to continue developing articles in accordance with the 
> concerns of the partisans. Because any disputes about 
> who can act in each role are an abstract issue from 
> the article, they can be dealt with judiciously as a 
> separate dispute by moderates not interested in 
> getting mud thrown at them. With templates and 
> categories, this can be more quickly done. 
> 
> Of course, this would mean that sysopdom does have 
> some responsibility and privelige for which they would 
> be more accountable, but this is weighed against the 
> need to have controversial articles not be such black 
> holes on Wikipedia. 
 

-- 
+++ GMX DSL-Tarife 3 Monate gratis* +++ Nur bis 25.7.2004 +++
Bis 24.000 MB oder 300 Freistunden inkl. http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl