What's up with Bulbapedia Admins?

[Maxim Posthumus]

There is ongoing discussion in Pokemon Platinum Version's article talk about the unprotecting of the page, yet NO ADMIN has ever reacted to this.

Tell me, what's going on here?

Do Bulbapedia admins forget about unprotecting the pages? Or are they just ignoring us, the MAIN EDITING FORCE? Really, it sometimes seems like admins want to have monopoly on editing Bulbapedia (I know it's stupid but it really does seem so). Protecting pages for every stupid reason and not unprotecting them when there's a reason to do so STOPS the Bulbapedia development! Is that what you call "Project Overgrow"?

I want some reasonability here. This protecting-mania is just unreasonable. (Really, what's the reason for that? Because there might be some kid who could state that there are a zillion of Pokemon Catchable in Platinum and that Winged Misty appears there? Then revert him and block him.) I really miss the times when everything was perfectly editable and up-to-date. Because of that protecting madness, Bulbapedia CAN'T be up to date.

Thanks for listening to my words. I hope they change something in the Bulbawiki.

 

[MAGNEDETH]

id like to have a Monopoly on editing BP. thatd be pretty cool. itd really stop gun-jumpers from adding unconfirmed info to pages and also stop speculation. come to think of it, thats exactly why fresh pages like that are protected.

 

[Sketch]

You've been told several times why pages like that are protected. It's not that we are being "protection happy". It's the fact that you are simply not listening. Yeah, I've seen your argument on the Platinum page. Why didn't I respond? Because you won't listen to the reason why Platinum is protected in the first place.

 

[Politoed666]

Um... additionally, instead of posting on the talk page and hoping the admins will see it, wouldn't it be more effective to post on an admin's talk page so that they get a little notice when they log on? Then maybe we would actually notice the problem... it's not like we check up on the TPs of every protected page on a regular basis, you know.

 

[TTEchidna]

I tend to do timed protections anyway. Then all you gotta do is wait for it to be up.

 

[Clarky13]

Hmmm... I don't think this is a monopoly going on, but there is a lack of admins at certain times of the day. I quite like the admins we have, but sometimes their power gets to them.

 

[Martonimos]

Protecting pages for every stupid reason and not unprotecting them when there's a reason to do so STOPS the Bulbapedia development! Is that what you call "Project Overgrow"?

I want some reasonability here. This protecting-mania is just unreasonable. (Really, what's the reason for that? Because there might be some kid who could state that there are a zillion of Pokemon Catchable in Platinum and that Winged Misty appears there? Then revert him and block him.) I really miss the times when everything was perfectly editable and up-to-date. Because of that protecting madness, Bulbapedia CAN'T be up to date.

Thanks for listening to my words. I hope they change something in the Bulbawiki.

...aren't you the one who wanted us to not let in any new users, thus essentially stagnating a good deal of expansion?

Anyway, if you want something done by an admin, your best bet is to poke his/her talk page. I rarely have time to do more than check my watchlist these days.

 

[Maxim Posthumus]

...aren't you the one who wanted us to not let in any new users, thus essentially stagnating a good deal of expansion?

What... I never said anything like that. Or maybe, you misunderstood some of my words.

Like I said, "gunjumping" is NOT a good reason to keep an article protected. That's really very paranoid not to let the users edit the page just because someone may "jump the gun". At the same logic, we could block ALL pages on the entire Pedia because there might be some vandal coming around. That's just lame and unreasonable.

Bulbapedia is for people who KNOW its policies and rules. If you don't want someone to jump the gun then don't let NEW users edit the page (I believe something like that is possible, though I never really owned a pedia) instead of blocking it to everyone.

Like I said, at the same logic, we could disallow editing EVERY page, as there might always be a vandal, speculator or fanficker coming around here.

 

[Blake]

If they are new then how would they ever learn to start editing the right way unless they did it wrong first and someone yells at them and tells them how to do it the right way?

If they never make a mistake then they can never learn. There isnt exactly a GUIDE to BulbaWiki'ing

You learn from Trial and Error.

 

[Maxim Posthumus]

If they are new then how would they ever learn to start editing the right way unless they did it wrong first and someone yells at them and tells them how to do it the right way?

If they never make a mistake then they can never learn. There isnt exactly a GUIDE to BulbaWiki'ing

You learn from Trial and Error.

But again, it's the minority of users. We shouldn't get so paranoid just because of them.

And yeah, people learn from Trial and Error. Blocking so many potentially editable pages is like... not letting them make errors/trials.

 

[Maverick Nate]

If they are new then how would they ever learn to start editing the right way unless they did it wrong first and someone yells at them and tells them how to do it the right way?

If they never make a mistake then they can never learn. There isnt exactly a GUIDE to BulbaWiki'ing

You learn from Trial and Error.

Uh... there is a guide, and a manual of style.

 

[DCM]

Oh the things I could say on this thread.......


moving on, I'm betting that Admins dont go back and check the pages theyve protected talk page. And most admins time the protection. and of course actually telling one of them on THEIR page would help.

 

[Martonimos]

What... I never said anything like that. Or maybe, you misunderstood some of my words.

Like I said, "gunjumping" is NOT a good reason to keep an article protected. That's really very paranoid not to let the users edit the page just because someone may "jump the gun". At the same logic, we could block ALL pages on the entire Pedia because there might be some vandal coming around. That's just lame and unreasonable.

Bulbapedia is for people who KNOW its policies and rules. If you don't want someone to jump the gun then don't let NEW users edit the page (I believe something like that is possible, though I never really owned a pedia) instead of blocking it to everyone.

Like I said, at the same logic, we could disallow editing EVERY page, as there might always be a vandal, speculator or fanficker coming around here.

Perhaps I did misunderstand. If you think that only the protected pages should be protected from new users, that's certainly less dramatic than the entire wiki. There is a semi-protection option when protecting a page. Of course, this doesn't do much good when users who've been here for months start edit-warring over something moronic. But it might help to use semi-protection once in a while, depending on the case.

 

[TTEchidna]

I don't even think semiprotection does that. Is there a specific date it draws from as "new"? I swear it was only for protecting it from those not confirmed by email.

 

[Maxim Posthumus]

Perhaps I did misunderstand. If you think that only the protected pages should be protected from new users, that's certainly less dramatic than the entire wiki. There is a semi-protection option when protecting a page. Of course, this doesn't do much good when users who've been here for months start edit-warring over something moronic. But it might help to use semi-protection once in a while, depending on the case.

Edit wars by serious users are (or at least should be) a rare and very marginal situation. Getting paranoid about such situations is stupid.

 

[Nekusagi]

*grabs popcorn*

 

[evkl]

Edit wars by serious users are (or at least should be) a rare and very marginal situation. Getting paranoid about such situations is stupid.

Just because they're supposed to be marginal doesn't mean they actually are, unfortunately.

I really wish that everyone was a rational actor and we could do things easily.

 

[Martonimos]

I don't even think semiprotection does that. Is there a specific date it draws from as "new"? I swear it was only for protecting it from those not confirmed by email.

Maybe. I'll see what I can find out.

Edit wars by serious users are (or at least should be) a rare and very marginal situation. Getting paranoid about such situations is stupid.

Serious? Not often. Established? All the time. Users who actually care about the wiki can figure these things out on a talk page, but more often, people concentrate more on their own ego. Just because someone's been here a while doesn't mean they're not a moron or not about to get into an edit war over something stupid.