On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@psi.co.at wrote:
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.
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.
Two party edit wars can be dealt with by 3RR blocks. 3RR blocks (or generic edit warring blocks) are not an appropriate response to edit wars of 30+ participants.
You are exaggerating. Take a look at the history, there have been two editors edit warring before the page was full protected. Now the blocking admin continues to edit the article alone.
And take a look at the page since the unprotection - in the 52-ish edits on 20 Fev, I count ~22 reverts, and only User:Librarianpmolib might've went over 3RR. But if you give it time for people to realise it's only semi'd, we'll probably see a bit of back and forth soon, under the circumstances.
The media attention of late seems to make a lof of editors unfamiliar with the situation think that resolving it is urgent, as if there's some quick solution. There's not. This article needs to be addressed with a long view.
Long view? The problem with that idea is, that you have to use "force" to keep it stable/unchanged. Either you block everybody who doesn't share your "long view" or you full protect the article. New ideas certainly can result in a more stable article, if there are more editors supporting that version.
Until recently, the page was almost perpetually semi'd in the configuration it was in when the media brew-ha-ha started, after many months of long negotiation, and few blocks, and only a single long full-protection that was unrelated to the issue of images. But yes, the standard is that dialogue is better than constant reverting with "dialogue" in edit summaries.
So far as I can tell, nobody who doesn't engage in vandalism is seriously accused of it, and admin powers are not being used to favour any one side (certainly I've been accused to using my admin powers to favour both sides, so I may not be an unbiased observer).
I wish, I could agree. But the admin who protected the page does consider those who remove the images "vandalizing". He had some other nice things to say, but I don't want to repeat that here.
Err, it's true that editors who routinely change a longstanding version arrived at after a few megs of discussion but who refuse to engage in discussion have been labelled vandals from time to time. Perhaps a poor choice of labels, I can't say. As with everything here, details and context are important. Leaving them out misrepresents the situation.
There certainly are non-vandal/trolls arguing for the images removal, just as there are vandals & trolls inserting images and the like. By-and-large, editors who behave civilly and don't edit war are free to try and improve the article, editors who don't aren't.
Nobody is, as the page is full protected.
Err, at the moment it's not, and ~50% of edits are reverts. This may be a good sign that the brew-ha-ha is blowing over, or may just be editors still unaware it's only semi'd. Only time will tell.
-- Raphael
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WilyD