Wikipedia talk:Version to protect

Is this guideline a good idea?[edit]

This page appears to be a counterpoint to m:the wrong version. I agree that TWV may appear to be unhelpful, but in fact it serves one very good purpose: to divert dialog about which version is better into dialog about improvement and compromise. If it were possible for editors to get an admin to change a protected page to the "right" version then protection wouldn't actually stop a dispute because both parties could make claims to "right"ness and get admins to come in to revert to their version, etc. (Radiant) 13:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point of this proposal. The idea is exactly to give an unambiguous definition of what the right version is in every but the explicitly excepted cases. Please read it carefully. I'll be happy to resolve any lack of clarity in the proposal, and obviously, any constructive edits that help to make the proposal more watertight are welcome as long as the original spirit is retained (otherwise it may be better to create a competing proposal). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that. My point, however, is that the argument of which version in a revert war is preferred is not solved by defining one version as such (but rather, through discussion). First, if a version was "obviously" preferred, there wouldn't have been a revert war. And second, this gives one of the sides in the revert war an incentive to not discuss, since they can point to a policy that says they're right. This gives scope to wikilawyers; if it would favor the older version, it inhibits progress; if it favors the later version, it inhibits stability. (Radiant) 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Radiant here. This is a really bad idea. All it does is punch holes in the power of admins. We already get hit hard with "you protected the wrong version!" All this does is give ammunition to those folks. The fact is, if admins are showing any favoritism, it is dealt with on AN, AN/I or privately. The impetus behind this proposal is completely bad faith. It's assuming that admins are often showing favoritism when they protect a page and that it goes unpunished.

Also, "unambiguous definition of what the right version is" is not possible, as Radiant said. If it was unambiguous, there wouldn't be an edit war! The current policy works just fine. It allows admins to protect pages without getting involved in the edit wars themselves. As soon as something like this is approved, that calls that neutrality into question just by the fact that the admin protected the page. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal is quite clear on what the motivation is, and that discussion is still encouraged. It's basically the same rationale that applies to {{prod}}. I'm sorry if you can't see that. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Radiant and don't think this proposal is a good idea. Per existing policy on page protection, the purpose of protection is to let an edit war cool down. The protecting admin should not make a judgment about which side of an edit war has the "right version", even a strictly limited judgment such as that proposed by Samsara. TheronJ 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This proposal is not about making a value judgement. It's about applying a hard rule. It's about minimising disruption and reducing bickering, because if this becomes a policy, there is going to be an indisputably correct version to protect. If someone complains, just point them here. Once you consider templates that are transcluded in dozens of articles, you begin to realise that protecting the conservative version is exactly the right thing to do, because it would be so much more work going through all the pages in which template is transcluded to see whether any collateral damage had occurred. No judgement involved. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith?[edit]

You might want to reconsider the inclusion of this sentence: Admins that sympathise with one side of a debate have more of a tendency to wait until the page is reverted to that version and then protect it. Do you have ANY basis for that statement, other than "common sense"? If not, it appears to violate WP:AGF. John Broughton | Talk 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than casual observation? Also see my comment on AGF. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith don't address the issue of whether admins do or do not wait until they see a version of a page that they like and THEN act, as opposed to acting immediately. So, again, do you think such a behavior (waiting) occurs 10% of the time? 40%? 80%? I ask because if the percent is low, the sentence's implication seems unnecessary (or even, in its implication, false), while if it's a mid-to-high percentage, that seems disturbing enough to justify further discussion, say at WP:AN. John Broughton | Talk 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to hazard a guess. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and I'm going to say that I oppose the guideline as it is currently worded, here, and in general. I think that the issue of which version to protect is so rarely clearcut that written guidance discussing any case with any complexity will essentially boil down to "do your best and be neutral", and that's what's expected of admins anyway. John Broughton | Talk 15:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperateness[edit]

Whether or not this becomes policy or guideline, I suspect it would do better as part of the protection policy(s). 68.39.174.238 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, this is a good place to discuss it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]