[WikiEN-l] page protection policy

[S. Vertigo]

--- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Con for your otherwise good proposal:
> * More bureaucracy. See [[m:instruction creep]] -

Not if its just reinstituting the basic common sense
approach that was common before the newer absolutist
protection policy.

> the people causing
> the problem won't read the instructions either, or
> we wouldn't have
> had the problem in the first place.

Which is why a moderation process should be an
alternate to the existing one trick pony {{protected}}
policy.

> One thing I've been wishing for lately is some way
> for third parties
> to drag edit warriors to mediation. 

Right. Mediation (aka "group therapy") is completely
besides the point of dealing with the article in the
short term.

> took a *lot* of dragging. And we appear to have a
> shortage of
> mediators ... (This is me not volunteering!)

Any sysop could and should be a moderator for an
article - but by claiming the role, they have some
*responsibility to follow process and deal with the
concerns, in addition to the *privelige of editing the
protected article. Plus that {{protected}} message is
just too unnecesarily big... 

S



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail