On Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 6:15 PM, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Wily D schrieb:
On Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM, Raphael Wegmann wegmann@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 theGeorge 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@gmail.com
I went to review the protection history; as it stands now, it was reduced to semi-protection by Tariqabjotuhttp://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.