On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: