 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Content Dispute
editBased on the constant reverting back and forth that seems to be taking place, I've fully protected this page for 3 days to encourage everyone involved to discuss on the talk page rather than continuing to revert back and forth. Please try to find a reasonable consensus and consider taking a look at WP:DR. GoodnightmushTalk 20:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Goodnightmush, I think the disruption is back. Can this be set to an EC-level protection? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given that there has been no discussion whatsoever, I have fully protected protected the page for another 3 days to encourage discussion that leads to a consensus. (I've opted for full protection rather than semi or ECP because, as best I can tell, this is a content dispute. Accordingly, I don't want to privilege registered users over unregistered users in that dispute. If a consensus emerges for one version and there is straightforward disruption that goes against that consensus, I'm happy to semi- or EC- protect the page as necessary.) GoodnightmushTalk 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it’s best for the unreverted addition made by an IP needs to be there. Then so be it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion on what the final (or current version) should look like. I just protected the page in the state it was in at the time I received your message, since the current state is not obviously vandalism, a WP:BLP violation, or similar, which is the default approach for full protection during an edit war or content dispute. GoodnightmushTalk 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Goodnightmush, I have come again to tell you that your IPs are back to work. On 29 October, you asserted that an incorrect information visible on the encyclopaedia is not “obviously vandalism” and referred to it as a content dispute [between experienced editors] and IPs. What do you think about the current state? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have any opinion on what the final (or current version) should look like. I just protected the page in the state it was in at the time I received your message, since the current state is not obviously vandalism, a WP:BLP violation, or similar, which is the default approach for full protection during an edit war or content dispute. GoodnightmushTalk 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it’s best for the unreverted addition made by an IP needs to be there. Then so be it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given that there has been no discussion whatsoever, I have fully protected protected the page for another 3 days to encourage discussion that leads to a consensus. (I've opted for full protection rather than semi or ECP because, as best I can tell, this is a content dispute. Accordingly, I don't want to privilege registered users over unregistered users in that dispute. If a consensus emerges for one version and there is straightforward disruption that goes against that consensus, I'm happy to semi- or EC- protect the page as necessary.) GoodnightmushTalk 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)