Policy on Protecting Pages

[Luna Tiger]

There's protecting pages for the sake of preventing a hundred people scrabbling with their version of assumptions and jumping the gun on what things look like versus what they are, and then there's protecting pages for reasons that fall in after-the-fact, mostly that seem unwarranted and fair as it's a public article.

I want to know the ethics on the latter. Say you create a page. It's a good page. It's a public article page. Then, as per how any wiki works, people start adding to it what they believe is viable and solid information to support the article's subject. And it goes on, and on, and soon the article is a year or two old. But the original creator of said article doesn't like how people throw in what he deems 'shallow' information and contributes little or none to the page, and subsequently locks it after pruning it to his standard.

Yes, there's a page like this I'm concerned about, but no, I'm not pointing it out publicly (though it's not my own; I don't have adminship on the 'pedia). I just want to know if it's right and if the user has the right to protect a page he created, simply on the basis that he didn't like where the article was going.

 

[Trainer-c]

I'm fairly sure that is an abuse of power. It is the very definition of a conflict of interest.

 

[Amewsment]

Hard to judge because it's not clear what other contributors are adding, but I would concur with Trainer-c to me it seems like misuse of power.

 

[electAbuzzzz]

Assuming things happened as you put them, then yeah, it's wrong. But nobody can do anything about it until we know what page you're referring to and hear the admin's reasoning.

 

[Luna Tiger]

I only stumbled across the issue today, because (according to my timezone) it just happened this morning. They locked the page, and left a note explaining why on the discussion page. Except I'm still not going to out them, without a higher calling (bold to my italics).

 

[Zhen Lin]

... it's Shipping, isn't it? I think I'm not the only one who thinks that the section needs better supervision than it gets now. It ought to be NPOV but I suspect the vast majority of articles are opinionated (but hopefully at least balanced).

 

[Luna Tiger]

The majority of them are more or less balanced, but those same articles are made on information that most wouldn't bother to refute, as it's the sort that isn't out to prove the relationship is there, but that it's possible to be seen. There are the few stubs that were made out of 'popularity' based on how many support them, but they're nevermets.

It's the bigger articles that come across as the problem, as everyone always has their opinion, and some of their supporters aren't willing to admit when a hint isn't a hint or evidence or whatnot, thus can't remain NPOV. I don't think they should be protected because someone believes too strongly about the 'ship and its evidence.