Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 15

message: :I would like this page to be unprotected; I think the non-controversial reverted material mentioned above should be inserted. I think we should have strawpolls about other disagreements, and we should abide by the consensus.
I agree
# Quadell (talk) 14:10, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
# Gzuckier 14:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-Strawpoll

message: Let's not let one or two users force the rest of us to have this page locked. If anyone arbitrarily removes useful contributions from others -- instead of discussing these changes -- this may be grounds for Arbitration Committee action.
Mav and Fred are likely to rule that any troublemaker(s) abstain from editing this article for a while... --Uncle Ed 20:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, let's let Cimon decide these things. Jayjg 20:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth option: unprotect

message: Ed Poor unprotected the page and started editing, along with Jayjg, and though it was amicable ("stop messing around"), Jay left this note on Simonedes' talk page:
:"The sysop Ed Poor has gone ahead an unprotected the article and started making some rather startling changes.  Would it be possible for you to start getting involved?"
So I thought it was a good idea to stop things now, to force some gameplan for how to proceed. Quadell has not yet responded to my invite to participate. -SV
::Correction Steve - he left a note on Cimon's page, not mine. Thanks for protecting the article. -- Simonides 22:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As Simonides as pointed out, the request was made at Cimon's page; the request was made there because Cimon is supposed to mediating the issues here, though at last count there are at least 3 other admins who seem to want to take charge of the situation. And I didn't edit anything, I just reverted Ed's edits; in fact, I didn't do a good enough job of that, since I missed a third controversial paragraph he managed to slip in.  "so called blood libel"?   What does that mean? Jayjg 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Steve, I'm not sure if you're enjoying the practical joke, but some of us don't appreciate the games being played and it ought to have been made clearer that the article was not really protected. If the article has to be protected, protect it; if you're not sure, then put up a note asking people to refer to the Talk page first; don't leave things done half-way to create confusion among other users and newcomers to the article. -- Simonides 06:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Ed is not the only one who has been "messing around" on this page. Jayjg 20:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: FYI I did protect it, and if there were a way of knowing who actually unprotected it, there should be some sanction against them. I tried a DB query, but these are still turned off. -SV 16:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve, when I checked the protection log there was no listing of a protection edit between Ed's and Cecropia's. If there has somehow been a breach it should be mentioned on arbitration/elsewhere right away. -- Simonides 21:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Im damn sure I clicked that button, but if I didnt, well that must have been my mistake. Arbitrate me if you want. Go right ahead. :} -SV 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about you, but anyone who may have meddled with the Protection tag without announcing it. -- Simonides 01:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, anyone would have been in their rights to edit the page, if it werent actually protected - the header alone does not imply protection as much as someone forgetting to remove it. -SV 05:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: What we're asking is whether you protected the article, or simply replicated the header. As I understand it you can't do both - non-sysops can edit articles with any header, but not protected ones. -- Simonides 05:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected