On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann <wegmann(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
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.
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.
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. 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.
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). 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. This isn't
unusual. Like anywhere else, article versions obtained after long,
hard discussions lasting many months and resulting in stability aren't
easily rewritten without discussion. This isn't unusual.
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.
--
Raphael
Those who're adding paedophile certainly did consider it an
improvement to the article, because like (most of) those removing the
image, they're not particularly concerned with encyclopaedic value or
neutral point of view.
Always, a gentle hand is needed.
Cheers
WilyD