[WikiEN-l] A call for moderation
wilydoppelganger at gmail.com
Wed Feb 20 13:02:14 UTC 2008
On Feb 19, 2008 9:15 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.".
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.
> > 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
> 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
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
More information about the WikiEN-l