I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re: [WikiEN-l]Unreasonabl eblock of user Blair P. Houghton by adminCryptoDerk

Wed Mar 16 21:18:53 UTC 2005

> 
> 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