Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@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 theGeorge 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.