[WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.

[wjhonson at aol.com]

 When full protection is used, then it should stay until it is changed to semi-protection.
We should not have a type of protection that allows admins to make *content* changes willy-nilly.
When an article is in full protection, admins should not be making content changes, except perhaps to revert changes that were the problematic ones in the first place.



<<Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit
war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.>>



 


 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Hall <sinewave at silentflame.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 2:40 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.










On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:33, <wjhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
> ?No Jonathan, the alternative to admin-only-editing is not full protection.
Jay's original email refers to using this when there has been an edit
war - in other words when full protection *is* used currently.
> Semi-protection allows established users to edit an article.
> Established users are not the same as sysops, therefore the rest of the 
universe isn't non-sysops.
> I'm not sure what makes one an "established user" exactly, but I'm one, and 
I'm not an admin.
>
> I would vigorously oppose any attempt to extend yet more editing power to the 
admin category.
> Admins are primarily supposed to have powers that affect meta elements, not 
the source text itself.? At least in a more perfect world.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hall <sinewave at silentflame.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 12:49 am
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 19:57, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>> In a message dated 7/22/2009 7:01:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>> sinewave at silentflame.com writes:
>>
>> OK - so ?I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong)
>> is:
>> We ?should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to
>> edit a BLP ?that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be
>> protected from ?editing by other (non-sysop) users.>>
>>
>> Why do you say "non-sysop" ? ?Are you proposing this editing be ?limited to
>> admins ?
> I'm not proposing this - that email is just my summary of what Jay put 
forward.
>
>> If so I'd vigorously oppose.
> I have concerns about it too, but given that the alternative would
> usually be full protection, it might be the lesser of two evils.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>> **************What's for dinner tonight? ?Find quick and easy dinner ideas
>> for any occasion.
>> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>




-- 
1001010 1001000110000111011001101100

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l