[WikiEN-l] A call for moderation

[George Herbert]

On Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.herbert at gmail.com>


I went to review the protection history; as it stands now, it was reduced to
semi-protection by Tariqabjotu<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu>
yesterday.  So it's not even full-protected anymore, and only seeing a
moderate degree of reversion since then.


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