On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:05:41AM -0500, Wily D wrote:
The "Good guys" are interested in writing an encyclopaedia, just don't
mistake the "No censorship at all costs, rub it in the Muslims' faces
and lamblast everything else you don't like about their
religion/religion in general" crowd as the good guys. There is a
short list somewhere, however.
For what it's worth, very few editors are blocked at Muhammad, which
is probably good, but definitely a result of heavy protection &
various other measures. That said, feel free to look at any time in
the history with no protection - you'll see that it's a complete,
probably unresolvable mess.
Depends on what you mean by mess?
The admin who protected the page, did so because editors removed
the images. I can't see that reason in WP:PROT, but then the
protection is understandable, when you read said admins comments
on the Talk page. Understandable - yes, but still a violation of
WP:PROT. Edit-wars can be dealt with 3RR blocks. IMHO there is
no reason to protect the page. How about hardening the 3RR
for Muhammad images? Let's say only 1 revert in 24hrs?
Accusing any group of "vandalism" and using admin powers
to strengthen your own side in this content dispute is certainly
not the way to go.
The "no images" crowd is not the only
group that shows up there with an axe or ten to grind. Externally
co-ordinated groups have been a problem there before, and doubtlessly
will be again. Not only Islamic groups, but (for instance) one trying
to insert the word "paedophile" as much as possible into every article
that mentions Muhammad.
There's a difference. Adding "paedophile" is certainly not a good-faith
effort and the editor can be blocked for vandalism. Removing a
Muhammad image is certainly not vandalism, because those who do,
consider it to be an improvement of this article.