Sarah Palin RFAR, Sarah Palin protection wheel war Options

[Rootology]

Just noting a new, separate thread that it's now open:

Main page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ction_wheel_war

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...el_war/Evidence

Workshop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...el_war/Workshop

Proposed Decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

[maggot3]

AN discussion about a related article involving jossi (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#..._of_Sarah_Palin

[Rootology]

The situation has gone completely cross-eyed, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...thout_consensus

Jossi just went on wikibreak, coincidentally. Why do people always do that when RFAR comes up? Then again, I went on wikibreak to a degree in a similar position in 2006, and we see how well THAT strategy turned out...

This post has been edited by Rootology: Fri 5th September 2008, 10:03pm

[Shalom]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody gets desysopped for this.

[One]

Wow. Jossi did the good ol' "I will wheel war with you to infinity" thing.

Uh oh. There's an IRC angle. ArbCom is to tackle anything IRC-related.

I think Shalom is right.

[SirFozzie]

Heh. Just saw this. I keep using the phrase, "The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging" Wish I had used it on jossi's page.

[Gold heart]

Heh. Just saw this. I keep using the phrase, "The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging" Wish I had used it on jossi's page.

Well, you might end up in China!!

[SirFozzie]

Heh. Just saw this. I keep using the phrase, "The first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging" Wish I had used it on jossi's page.

Well, you might end up in China!!

(Well, first you'd end up in Molten Lava, which is not to confused with Moulton Lava).

But at that point it's no longer a hole... it's a trans-earth tunnel!

[Giggy]

Heh, FloNight trying to defend the uber BLP powahs (FT2 is right, IMO) is amusing.

[badlydrawnjeff]

The hypocrisy in this case is astounding. Doc and company wanted to run me out on rails for opposing a BLP decision on the EXACT SAME PREMISE Doc notes on his comment to the ArbCom.

I love it.

[Doc glasgow]

The hypocrisy in this case is astounding. Doc and company wanted to run me out on rails for opposing a BLP decision on the EXACT SAME PREMISE Doc notes on his comment to the ArbCom.

I love it.

Hm, that sounds damning, but is also at variance with reality.

I do not consider, and have never considered, the sort of activity related to Palin to be BLP violations. BLP (for me) concerns unverified or biased commentary which can be harmful to the subject, AND will not be immediately removed. That's wikipedia's systemic problem.

Whilst the following comment will piss off the vandal paranoid, and any Republican cheerleaders, I do not consider any of the edits to Palin to have anything to do with BLP. This is vandalism pure and simple and is the cost of being a wiki. If people get fed up reverting, then they should look away, because others will be happy to revert. For me, it only becomes a BLP issue when there's a failure to remove immediately - that was not the case here.

Protection was ridiculous. Perhaps for an hour or so to get rid of a persistant vandal, but really if it is to remove bad contributions to an article like that, then we'd need to lock it till November, or (heaven help the USA) for four, or eight years.

[Bob Boy]

Whilst the following comment will piss off the vandal paranoid, and any Republican cheerleaders, I do not consider any of the edits to Palin to have anything to do with BLP. This is vandalism pure and simple and is the cost of being a wiki. If people get fed up reverting, then they should look away, because others will be happy to revert. For me, it only becomes a BLP issue when there's a failure to remove immediately - that was not the case here.

Protection was ridiculous. Perhaps for an hour or so to get rid of a persistant vandal, but really if it is to remove bad contributions to an article like that, then we'd need to lock it till November, or (heaven help the USA) for four, or eight years.

It looks like the exact problem with that article was that hardly anyone was pitching in to fight off the horde attacking it, at the same time that millions of people were reading it. Has there ever been a page with this kind of view stats? Somebody said there were at least two million page views per day for an extended period of time.

[Doc glasgow]

Whilst the following comment will piss off the vandal paranoid, and any Republican cheerleaders, I do not consider any of the edits to Palin to have anything to do with BLP. This is vandalism pure and simple and is the cost of being a wiki. If people get fed up reverting, then they should look away, because others will be happy to revert. For me, it only becomes a BLP issue when there's a failure to remove immediately - that was not the case here.

Protection was ridiculous. Perhaps for an hour or so to get rid of a persistant vandal, but really if it is to remove bad contributions to an article like that, then we'd need to lock it till November, or (heaven help the USA) for four, or eight years.

It looks like the exact problem with that article was that hardly anyone was pitching in to fight off the horde attacking it, at the same time that millions of people were reading it. Has there ever been a page with this kind of view stats? Somebody said there were at least two million page views per day for an extended period of time.

So? Protect it for a few hours and see how it goes. But 1) This is about vandalism not BLP. 2) If you want static articles, always reliable to view, then you've got the wrong project. Try Encarta.

[Rootology]

Protection was ridiculous. Perhaps for an hour or so to get rid of a persistant vandal, but really if it is to remove bad contributions to an article like that, then we'd need to lock it till November, or (heaven help the USA) for four, or eight years.

Doc, all that aside, BLP aside, you had shit--good or bad--being added and removed rapid fire in an epic war that spanned about two days.

You and I could dick around and fight over a road name, between avenue and boulevard, each edit 3 times a day for two days, and get the article locked down for days on end for protection.

Look at the stuff I posted in the workshop. Even BLP aside, at an absolute positive dead minimum, protection for the ludicrous edit warring was warranted. Fuck it being a high profile article. You had edit warring banging over sometimes more than 1 per minute, and there was no way to keep track of it all.

You can disagree all you want about them stuff I listed in evidence BLP vios, but when someone puts up an edit that on any other article would be a likely BLP vio if it stayed up a day and got 1,000 page views, think about this: if it stayed up on Palin when this is happening, it was getting 1,000 page views a MINUTE.

And like I said on the evidence, I triple dog dare ANYONE to paint ME of all people as a Republican cheerleader.

So? Protect it for a few hours and see how it goes. But 1) This is about vandalism not BLP. 2) If you want static articles, always reliable to view, then you've got the wrong project. Try Encarta.

Thats the problem. There WAS consensus for this, as I proved flat-out in the Evidence section. When the unprotection wars began, there was virtually no one but the admins that thought they were Elvis that frankly in opposition.

The ideal of the "wiki way" takes a back seat to consensus when it has to, and it doesn't hurt anything. If it didn't we wouldn't have protection buttons.

[Rootology]

Take a look at my evidence page.

This post has been edited by Rootology: Sat 6th September 2008, 4:31pm

[Bob Boy]

I see Jossi is trying every tired wikilawyering trick he can think of to get out of the hole he's dug for himself. What a tool.

Didn't Jossi have some notoriety for owning and shining up the article of a cult leader, or something?

[Milton Roe]

I see Jossi is trying every tired wikilawyering trick he can think of to get out of the hole he's dug for himself. What a tool.

Didn't Jossi have some notoriety for owning and shining up the article of a cult leader, or something?

Yes, Prem Rawat. There's an article on him at ED. Jossi is editorically very much in the mode of Brit punker and pop culture hogs David Gerard and Sceptre. Possibly for this reason, Jossi and Gerard tie for the dubious distinction of editing the most main article in common with FT2.

Jossi, David Gerard, and Sceptre have edited more than 100 articles together now. It's pretty much stuff you see on TV or the movies or on your gamebox.


#1 Yoda - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 William_Shakespeare - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 Wikipedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Wikimedia_Foundation - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Wheel - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 Uncyclopedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 Turkey - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Time_travel - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 The_Matrix - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 The_Lord_of_the_Rings - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 The_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 The_Amazing_Race - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Star_Wars_Episode_I:_The_Phantom_Menace - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Star_Wars - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Son_Goku_(Dragon_Ball) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 Sex - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Severus_Snape - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 September_11_attacks - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 Scientology - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 Saddam_Hussein - edited by 3 of 3 users
#22 Romeo_and_Juliet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#23 Rat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#24 Rainbow - edited by 3 of 3 users
#25 Racial_segregation - edited by 3 of 3 users
#26 QWERTY - edited by 3 of 3 users
#27 Prostitution - edited by 3 of 3 users
#28 Nuclear_weapon - edited by 3 of 3 users
#29 Norway - edited by 3 of 3 users
#30 Nirvana_(band) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#31 New_York_City - edited by 3 of 3 users
#32 Nelly - edited by 3 of 3 users
#33 Mount_St._Helens - edited by 3 of 3 users
#34 Microsoft - edited by 3 of 3 users
#35 Master_Chief_(Halo) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#36 Marilyn_Manson_(band) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#37 Marilyn_Manson - edited by 3 of 3 users
#38 Margaret_Thatcher - edited by 3 of 3 users
#39 Making_Money - edited by 3 of 3 users
#40 Lord_Voldemort - edited by 3 of 3 users
#41 Linux - edited by 3 of 3 users
#42 Liar_paradox - edited by 3 of 3 users
#43 Leet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#44 L._Ron_Hubbard - edited by 3 of 3 users
#45 Kiss - edited by 3 of 3 users
#46 Julius_Caesar - edited by 3 of 3 users
#47 Juelz_Santana - edited by 3 of 3 users
#48 Johnny_Depp - edited by 3 of 3 users
#49 John_Kerry - edited by 3 of 3 users
#50 Jew - edited by 3 of 3 users
#51 Jennifer_Aniston - edited by 3 of 3 users
#52 J._K._Rowling - edited by 3 of 3 users
#53 Italy - edited by 3 of 3 users
#54 Invader_Zim - edited by 3 of 3 users
#55 Impossible_Creatures - edited by 3 of 3 users
#56 High_School_Musical - edited by 3 of 3 users
#57 Heaven - edited by 3 of 3 users
#58 Harvard_University - edited by 3 of 3 users
#59 Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince - edited by 3 of 3 users
#60 Halo_2 - edited by 3 of 3 users
#61 Halo:_Combat_Evolved - edited by 3 of 3 users
#62 GoldenEye_007 - edited by 3 of 3 users
#63 George_W._Bush - edited by 3 of 3 users
#64 Geek - edited by 3 of 3 users
#65 Fuck - edited by 3 of 3 users
#66 Fred_Phelps - edited by 3 of 3 users
#67 Francis_Ford_Coppola - edited by 3 of 3 users
#68 France - edited by 3 of 3 users
#69 Football - edited by 3 of 3 users
#70 First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - edited by 3 of 3 users
#71 Extraterrestrial_life - edited by 3 of 3 users
#72 Eureka_Seven - edited by 3 of 3 users
#73 ENIAC - edited by 3 of 3 users
#74 Donkey_punch - edited by 3 of 3 users
#75 David_Miscavige - edited by 3 of 3 users
#76 David_Irving - edited by 3 of 3 users
#77 Czech_Republic - edited by 3 of 3 users
#78 Criticism_of_Wikipedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#79 Copyright - edited by 3 of 3 users
#80 Cole_&_Dylan_Sprouse - edited by 3 of 3 users
#81 Church_of_Scientology - edited by 3 of 3 users
#82 Christianity - edited by 3 of 3 users
#83 Chip_Berlet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#84 Chile - edited by 3 of 3 users
#85 Bullfighting - edited by 3 of 3 users
#86 Buddhism - edited by 3 of 3 users
#87 Blog - edited by 3 of 3 users
#88 Bill_Rancic - edited by 3 of 3 users
#89 Bill_Gates - edited by 3 of 3 users
#90 Beer - edited by 3 of 3 users
#91 Batman - edited by 3 of 3 users
#92 Astrology - edited by 3 of 3 users
#93 Art_in_ancient_Greece - edited by 3 of 3 users
#94 Apple_Inc. - edited by 3 of 3 users
#95 American_Idol - edited by 3 of 3 users
#96 Alex_Jordan - edited by 3 of 3 users
#97 Adriaen_van_der_Donck - edited by 3 of 3 users
#98 Abraham_Lincoln - edited by 3 of 3 users
#99 AC/DC - edited by 3 of 3 users
#100 50_Cent - edited by 3 of 3 users
#101 2007 - edited by 3 of 3 users

[One]

Rootology's right here.

Perhaps the problem is that some admins really wanted to test BLP protection, and some strongly believed there were no BLP violations here. Maybe the whole thing could have been avoided by protecting "for BLP violations AND edit warring" (the latter was undeniable). It's hard to imagine that a page with a history like that would NOT be protected by RFPP.

This was not a good BLP protection test case on either side, and Jossi just looks like a jackass.

[Bob Boy]

Looks like, despite his promise to keep away from politics articles, Jossi's got a bad case of Saracudaphobia and just can't stay away from the Palin article. He's on the talk page making incoherent rants.

[Rootology]

got a bad case of Saracudaphobia

This is going to become the new meme, mark my words. Anderson Cooper will say that phrase on-air and we'll be watching edit wars over [[Sarahcudaphobia]] soon. I just tossed it on Facebook, Livejournal, and the Blogosphere.

This post has been edited by Rootology: Sat 6th September 2008, 10:33pm