On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann
<raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
WP:PROT says
Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:
* Pages subject to heavy and persistent vandalism, such as the
George W. Bush article.
* Biographies subject to persistent violation of the biographies
of living persons or neutral point of view policies.
or two other irrevelant reasons. The page is subject to indef
semi-protection because of persistant vandalism (which is gets by the
bucketload) and as a response to regular bouts of edit warring (and
not only over images, but all hosts of other things to), and this is
also specifically allowed by WP:PROT for an article with an active
edit war. Protecting pages is far better than handing out stacks of
3RR blocks, but it's also far less inflammatory. This is really the
primary concern. Rather than blocking trolls, just removing trolling
keeps things more civil.
First of all [[Muhammad]] is not semi-protected, it is
full-protected.
Secondly the protection is a violation of [[WP:PROT]] which states,
that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [edit
warring] if they are in any way involved in the dispute.".
Err, Muhammad bounces up and down from semi-to-full all the time.
"Protection" without a modifier makes more sense as referring to both
semi and full. Not sure who the protecting admin is this time - so I
can't comment on whether they're involved in the dispute or not, but
Muhammad is the subject of lots of different disputes from time to
time.
Not sure and not interested to find out. I consider that to be the
biggest problem of Wikipedia. Admins are the untouchable inside group,
who can violate policy as they please. They are not accountable and
hardly ever loose their administrator privileges.
--
Raphael