On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann
<wegmann(a)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 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.".