Tony Sidaway wrote
> I dispute any suggestion that protection of a page is in any way *less*
> drastic than blocking a user. If a page is protected, *nobody* can edit
> it. If one or two over-enthusiastic revert warriors are blocked for up to
> a day, only their potential edits are lost--and since they're likely to be
> holding up editing by their reverts, their loss is often a very good
> thing.
Charles Matthews wrote:
That omits the edits to other pages blocked users cannot make.
Page protection is unpopular; temp-banning 3RR violaters seems to
have a good consensus behind it. This displays a rational attitude
to the content of the page in question, I think. Edit warring
usually stops the development of a page right in its tracks, often
for the sake of a part of the whole that is not that significant.
Well of course page protection is unpopular and banning has a "good
consensus'--page protection affects *me* but banning affects *them*. :)
But consider that page protection can be short--just long enough, if the participants calm
down, for the admin to look at the situation and put a few choice comments and suggestions
on the article talk, and see if he s/he can get some feedback as to how to proceed. Yes,
this is some work for the admin, but the admin cannot take a step like that and walk away.
In fact, one admin who did that (among other things) was de-admined. With the 3RR block,
the admin is walking away: the "winning" side is satisfied, and the
"loser" stews in his/her juices for 24 hours. This is easy but doesn't
contribute to Wikipedia, the community, or the encyclopedia.
--C
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at
Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm