Pacman gets more protection than a BLP?, Wiki admins seem to think so Options

[Kato]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...an_RFP_decision

Yesterday, I requested semi-protection for a BLP: Newt Gingrich.[53] It has a long history of anonymous and frequently quite nasty vandalism; I pointed to eleven incidents in the last two weeks, and noted that other articles - not even BLPs - had been protected for fewer incidents over the same period of time. Protection was refused by user:Royalguard11.

That would have been difficult enough to understand, but to make the decision even less comprehensible, not ten minutes later, user:Royalguard11 granted protection for PacMan, which has had barely more anonymous vandalism (twelve edits) over the same time period.[54] Pacman! We are more concerned about vandalism of articles about a 1980s video game character than a BLP?

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!

[Rhindle]

Pacman is one of the great American cultural icons and deserves protection. Newt Gingrich is a mean Republican who does not deserve any protections that a fictional character does.

[Kato]

Pacman is one of the great American cultural icons and deserves protection. Newt Gingrich is a mean Republican who does not deserve any protections that a fictional character does.

[Jon Awbrey]

Don't be fooled for a second — The Unspeakable Truth™ is —

Wikipediots Fear Pac-Man Waaay More Than They Fear Newt !!!

And don't even ask about Ms. Pac-Man

Ja Ja

[Anonymous editor]

I think you might enjoy JzG's comments there.

[Kato]

I think you might enjoy JzG's comments there.

JzG writes:

I think less-watched articles are more likely to be protected (fewer eyes), high viewer traffic articles will be less likely, due to many eyes to revert vandalism; high profile articles are our storefront, we work hard to keep them open. I think all this has been explained. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Jimbo Wales (T-H-L-K-D) a less watched article with "fewer eyes", or a "storefront" article? Either way, it's been protected without review for years.

Simon Dodd makes comparisons to more articles:

Page protection granted earlier today for 17 Kids and Counting, "a reality television show," after six incidents of anonymous vandalism in the last week.[63] Six in a week is good enough for reality TV, eight in a week is good enough for cartoon characters and 80s video games, but eight is not enough to protect a BLP?

But JzG has an answer to such complaints:

Mate, all that is just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS material.

Oh, that's OK then.

[Rhindle]

But JzG has an answer to such complaints:

Mate, all that is just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS material.

Oh, that's OK then.

His answer sounds like a non-sequiter. Or he just thinks crap is more worthy of protection.

[maggot3]

OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument against Keep votes in deletion arguments, saying that although other articles exist or have been kept in the past, this should have no effect on the AfD now. It's a ridiculous argument, because it tends to ignore the reverse as well (saying precedent is to delete x article). It's even more stupid when applied to other ideas; a lot isn't standardised and precedent is about the only clue to how things work.

[Milton Roe]

OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument against Keep votes in deletion arguments, saying that although other articles exist or have been kept in the past, this should have no effect on the AfD now. It's a ridiculous argument, because it tends to ignore the reverse as well (saying precedent is to delete x article). It's even more stupid when applied to other ideas; a lot isn't standardised and precedent is about the only clue to how things work.

Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is one of those remarkable arguments targetted straight at any idea of fairness and equal-treatment and (as you say) at any idea of standardization and precedent by which societies run. The other equally bad one is WP:POINT, which prevents somebody from logically beating down somebody's stupid or hypocritical view by demonstrating in reality the utterly disasterous consequences if it were actually universally applied without favoritism. An application would be to simply un-sprotect Wales' article, and see how he enjoys maintaining it. But you'd be blocked on WP:POINT if you did.

It's totally amazing that either policy has survived. Probably it's part of the mad-cult-belief thing. Any "fairness" proclivities have been left by the wayside, as this game is narcissism, and they are irrelevent therefore. Sometimes you can even see the structure of how they've been made formally irrrelevent, and these policies are the kind of thing you see when you do.

[Jon Awbrey]

Any Card-Carrying Diabolical Materialist Will Tell You —

As A Matter Historical Necessity Over Time : WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ⇒⇒⇒ WP:ONLYCRAPEXISTS

Ja Ja Ja

[One]

Pacman is one of the great American cultural icons and deserves protection. Newt Gingrich is a mean Republican who does not deserve any protections that a fictional character does.

Hmm. Yeah. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sarah Palin (and not Joe Biden) was used as a laboratory in open editing.

[AlioTheFool]

othercrapexists is a good argument. where do you think precedent comes from in court? most of the time the way we judge things is based on precedent, how other things are handled, how they've been handled in the past.
somehow it became a way to discredit a ton of things on wikipedia. I think zis guy has weak arguments.

[Milton Roe]

Pacman is one of the great American cultural icons and deserves protection. Newt Gingrich is a mean Republican who does not deserve any protections that a fictional character does.

Hmm. Yeah. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sarah Palin (and not Joe Biden) was used as a laboratory in open editing.

Yep. In the same way, sometime-presidental candidate Joe Lieberman's bio is sprotected on WP but Mike Huckabee's is not. For no obvious reason that I can think of but the fact that Lieberman is more acceptable to the political climate on WP, and to the people who hold power on it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Yep. In the same way, sometime-presidental candidate Joe Lieberman's bio is sprotected on WP but Mike Huckabee's is not. For no obvious reason that I can think of but the fact that Lieberman is more acceptable to the political climate on WP, and to the people who hold power on it.

Maybe Lieberman just has a more e-fective Pedia Action Committee.

Jon

[maggot3]

Yep. In the same way, sometime-presidental candidate Joe Lieberman's bio is sprotected on WP but Mike Huckabee's is not. For no obvious reason that I can think of but the fact that Lieberman is more acceptable to the political climate on WP, and to the people who hold power on it.

hmm yes that's exactly it and not just some guy doing it and never removing it

[Kato]

Yep. In the same way, sometime-presidental candidate Joe Lieberman's bio is sprotected on WP but Mike Huckabee's is not. For no obvious reason that I can think of but the fact that Lieberman is more acceptable to the political climate on WP, and to the people who hold power on it.

hmm yes that's exactly it and not just some guy doing it and never removing it

See Mr. Wales goes to Washington.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Yep. In the same way, sometime-presidental candidate Joe Lieberman's bio is sprotected on WP but Mike Huckabee's is not. For no obvious reason that I can think of but the fact that Lieberman is more acceptable to the political climate on WP, and to the people who hold power on it.

hmm yes that's exactly it and not just some guy doing it and never removing it

I thought some admins trawled through CS,CWEM's sysop actions and reversed them? Perhaps it was just the block log?

[Kato]

Simon Dodd, who highlighted the travesty that "Pacman" was getting more protection from WP admins than a BLP, was basically told to shut up and get on with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=271361711

Perhaps, Mr. Dodd, you could, rather than spend considerable time and energy arguing for indefinite protection of the article, resubmit to RFP for short-term protection. If, when that time is up, protection is again deemed necessary, ask for more. Should it turn out that protection is repeatedly needed, I think you'll find a request for indefinite protection will hold far more weight. Just a suggestion. [[User:Closenplay|Closenplay]] ([[User talk:Closenplay|talk]]) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS Added Newt to my watchlist to help ease the burden.

The ubiquitous JzG then closed and archived the discussion.

Pathetic.

They should have protected the article a la Jimbo Wales (T-H-L-K-D) and hid their faces in shame.