[WikiEN-l] A call for moderation

[George Herbert]

On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> Wily D schrieb:
> > On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann <wegmann at 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.".
>

I would be happy, as an heretofore uninvolved admin, to go redo the
protection so it's done by an admin who hasn't been involved.

That would be a symbolic moot point, so it's probably not worth bothering
with, but if you insist on the technicality I will do so at the next
opportunity.



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com