 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I don't agree with the policy of "Do not edit a protected page" as applied to pages temporarily protected to stop an edit war.
- Sometimes it's possible for a sysop to improve the text in a way that all parties can agree on; there should be an exception for this, at least
- Freezing a page implies endorsement with that version. What if there's a better, more neutral version?
- What if there's a typo?
--Uncle Ed 16:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- 1) Perhaps this is something that needs to be built into the official mediation system when it starts?
- 2) The problem here is that if I am in an edit war, my version will seem to me to be the "better, more neutral version". Freezing a page should not imply any endorsement of any version.
- 3) The issue is that non-sysops can't fix typos in protected pages, so why should sysops be able to? Angela. 05:28, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- 1)Then they should unprotect the page after reaching a consensus, then edit it.
- 2)True...
- 3)Angela, the reason that sysops are sysops is because they are well-trusted by the rest of the community. I accidentally made a rather major edit to USA PATRIOT Act while it was protected, and I corrected a typo or two on User:Kingturtle's page... but my opinion is that as long as the edit does not have anything to do with the reason of protection (vandalism of the Main Page, for example), sysops should be able to edit protected pages. What if there was an edit war on the Patriot Act (which has happened before), and during its protection, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Can we not edit it to show that? ugen64 02:25, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)