[WikiEN-l] Should anons edit Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy?

[dmehkeri at swi.com]

> Cheney Shill wrote:
> > Anons should not be editing policy.  As you point out, it
> > contributes little (nothing that couldn't be done with a
> > throw-away account) and just wastes admin time.  And may
> > even lead to the frustration that has been voiced on this
> > list by admins quitting wiki.  Utterly pointless.
> 
> I see it as pointless too, but sure not as much that someone should 
> construe a wiki-quitting reason out of this.
> 
> It's just a waste of time to watch and revert these anon-policy changes. 
> Yet another reason to remove these pages from one's own watchlist 
> (another form of IAR ;-).
> 
> It serves more as a honey-pot for vandals, with ensuing potential 
> collateral damage caused by IP blocks.
> 
> But it's probably not that important. I was just a bit astonished to see 
> that we we cannot semi-protect the policy about semi-protection ;-)
> 

(and WP:FULL should be fully protected! And WP:CSD should b<BZZZZZT> GAAAAH ow
that hurt)

I used to log in to edit the occasional meta-page, thinking I needed a Real
Pseudonym to be Taken Seriously. But then I tried it logged out, and found it
wasn't true, I don't get reverted (any more than I did before). 

I'm actually pretty impressed that this is the case.

Regards,
Dan Mehkeri

(and WP:VAND should be vabnali<BZZZZZZZZT> GAAAAAAH alright sorry sorry)