When an article is in full protection.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

When an article is in full protection.

WereSpielChequers
Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>


Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
consensus?

WereSpielChequers


>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>  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.>>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Al Tally
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM, WereSpielChequers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
> protected articles per: WP:FULL.<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>
>
>
> Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
> admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
> consensus?
>
> WereSpielChequers
>

If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be fully
protected?

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

sineWAVE
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 13:15, Al Tally<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:21 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
>> protected articles per: WP:FULL.<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
>> admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
>> consensus?
>>
>> WereSpielChequers
>>
>
> If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be fully
> protected?
There may be consensus on one issue but disagreement over another. Say
the subject of a protected article dies. Obviously there will be
consensus that the article needs to reflect this (not that it's
sensible to take the time to see whether there's consensus there or
not) but the dispute that lead to protection may still be ongoing.
Extreme example I know, but this *kind* of thing happens. It's why we
have {{editprotected}}.

>
> --
> Alex
> (User:Majorly)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>




--
1001010 1001000110000111011001101100

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by Al Tally
2009/7/23 Al Tally <[hidden email]>:
>
> If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be fully
> protected?

There's quite often a bitter disagreement over one thing, which sadly
results in protection to stop the editwarring, despite general
agreement on more broad issues.

"[twelfth-century figure] is French!" "No, he's German!" "Dutch, you
cultural imperialists!"

 "...but other than that lede sentence, we need to do the following
dozen things to the section on his work."

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers
2009/7/23 WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>:

> Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
> admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
> consensus?


This usually works okay in practice, but then, that too is an
administrative role, rather than an admin making a content decision as
such, and needs to be confirmed sensibly.

e.g. "I've added xxxx, does that work for everyone?"

A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
(at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
stepping in and saying "no, this is a  severe BLP hazard, we have to
do this right."


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

David Gerard-2
2009/7/23 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:

> This usually works okay in practice, but then, that too is an
> administrative role, rather than an admin making a content decision as
> such, and needs to be confirmed sensibly.
> e.g. "I've added xxxx, does that work for everyone?"
> A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
> locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
> (at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
> stepping in and saying "no, this is a  severe BLP hazard, we have to
> do this right."


Another recent non-BLP example is [[Ununbium]], which was locked from
moves after the likely name Copernicium was announced - it's not the
name unless there are no substantial objections by Jan 2010, but the
media headlines implied it was the name of the element right now. (The
name situation is now explained in the intro itself, because it's
current and important enough editorially.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Ken Arromdee
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:
> A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
> locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
> (at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
> stepping in and saying "no, this is a  severe BLP hazard, we have to
> do this right."

I would think that a BLP ceases to be a BLP once the person dies.  I suppose
there could still be problems for other living people who are mentioned on
the page, but the main BLP problem would seem to be gone (unless you want to
extend BLP to the recently dead).


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

David Gerard-2
2009/7/23 Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]>:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:

>> A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
>> locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
>> (at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
>> stepping in and saying "no, this is a  severe BLP hazard, we have to
>> do this right."

> I would think that a BLP ceases to be a BLP once the person dies.  I suppose
> there could still be problems for other living people who are mentioned on
> the page, but the main BLP problem would seem to be gone (unless you want to
> extend BLP to the recently dead).


In this case it was while it was still uncertain that he was really
dead. Keeping questionable death reports out of a BLP is important,
particularly as enough people went to Wikipedia first to knock the
servers over ...


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Andrew Gray-3
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/7/23 Al Tally:
>  
>> If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be fully
>> protected?
>>    
> There's quite often a bitter disagreement over one thing, which sadly
> results in protection to stop the editwarring, despite general
> agreement on more broad issues.

For some of us leaving erroneous material on an article is a lesser evil
than the massive drama connected with trying to correct the error.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

> 2009/7/23 Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, David Gerard wrote:
>>    
>>> A good example is the death of Michael Jackson, where the page was
>>> locked and the discussion was fast and furious. Being a sensitive BLP
>>> (at the time), that was IMO just the right way to do it. Admins
>>> stepping in and saying "no, this is a  severe BLP hazard, we have to
>>> do this right."
>>>      
>> I would think that a BLP ceases to be a BLP once the person dies.  I suppose
>> there could still be problems for other living people who are mentioned on
>> the page, but the main BLP problem would seem to be gone (unless you want to
>> extend BLP to the recently dead).
>>    
> In this case it was while it was still uncertain that he was really
> dead. Keeping questionable death reports out of a BLP is important,
> particularly as enough people went to Wikipedia first to knock the
> servers over ...
>
>  
We need to be ready for the onslaught when Elvis dies. :-)

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

WJhonson
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers

 The function of an admin in an edit-war situation should be solely to revert to a previously accepted version, and await talk page consensus, then unprotect.? Admins should not change an article to what they believe is the talk page consensus, as oftentimes this involves a great amount of knowledge of exactly how to word a phrase.

Some editors have the mistaken idea that admin editing is the "Stamp of approval" by Wikipedia, and will promote that version even if it does not reflect an accurate understanding of consensus. Thus creating bureaucratic entanglements that suppress instead of enhancing scholarly consensus. Admin actions should be toned down, not given a carte blanche to make content edits during an edit-war.

Will Johnson



 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 4:21 am
Subject: [WikiEN-l] When an article is in full protection.










Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
protected articles per: WP:FULL.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>


Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request for
admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
consensus?

WereSpielChequers


>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>  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.>>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Jay Litwyn-2
In reply to this post by WereSpielChequers
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version Inevitable Postulate of
Version Control]

"WereSpielChequers" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...

> Actually there are circumstances when admins can and should edit fully
> protected articles per:
> WP:FULL.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FULL>
>
>
> Does anyone really object to the idea of admins responding to a request
> for
> admin help by editing a fully protected page in accordance with talkpage
> consensus?
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
>
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:18 -0400
>> From: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>>  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.>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Luna-4
In reply to this post by Al Tally
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Al Tally <[hidden email]>wrote:

> If there is talk page consensus, does the page really still need to be
> fully
> protected?
>

Not all protection is in response to edit warring. First example to come to
mind: high-use templates.

-Luna
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: When an article is in full protection.

Charlotte Webb
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Luna<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not all protection is in response to edit warring. First example to come to
> mind: high-use templates.

FlaggedRevs would work better for that, likewise high-use images, of
which flags (in the heraldic sense, i.e. those which swing from a
pole) would be a good example.

Rumor has it this extension is coming soon a wiki near you, like this
weekend maybe[1], but I'll believe it when I see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_47#Flagged_Revisions_update_-_requesting_an_update_from_Jimmy

What we'd really need is some kind of god-parameter to indicate
whether we want to transclude the stable or bleeding-edge version of a
template or image.

Of course I don't expect much empathy from those who haven't had the
misfortune to design a template and then permanently be locked out of
it.

—C.W.

[1] Preserved for posterity in case this falls down the memory hole:

"I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of
the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible.
I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good
start. Once the tool is technically enabled, I think that policy will
move over time to the appropriate balance, just as protection and
semi-protection did. I believe it likely that I will be for a long
time in favor of cautious expansion of the use of the tool for more
articles - but I respect the concerns people have about it (the length
of the backlog in German Wikipedia has been too often too long, in my
opinion). I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested
"before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2
June 2009 (UTC)"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_47#Flagged_Revisions_update_-_requesting_an_update_from_Jimmy>

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