Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby/protection

Full-protection of Jewish lobby
I recently (fully) protected the Jewish lobby article under the reasoning of "continued edit-warring, full protection until mediation issues are resolved". I was just informed of this mediation page (in addition to the other venues it is placed at, i.e. Talk:Jewish lobby and Requests for mediation/Jewish lobby). I was responding to a request for page protection request by where her request stated "Full protection due to continued edit-warring over just about every section of the article. Requesting protection during Mediation until issues are resolved." In a standard response here (to a procedure which I have been involved with before, by that meaning I am used to protecting pages, in particular those that are subject to edit-wars or other disputes) I fully protected the article after briefly looking over the article history, edit summary comments and some diffs&mdash;I concluded the page was in need of protection and applied the appropriate tool. If I am fault here, I accept full responsibility. If I have misunderstood the differences that I saw in the article history or misinterpreted the events that did actually happen, I accept that unprotection may be complimentary needed (especially in consideration of the fact that Jayjg is an administrator (his footing in this dispute is unknown by me at this particular point in time)). Regards, Rudget . 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it was the mediator requesting protection, due to continued edit warring, I think you're safe ;). I would also like to point out that John Nagle should not have suggested that your normal and warranted administrative action made you "involved" in this dispute; he is completely incorrect. Shell    babelfish 17:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me some complainants have not brought issues here, which is why I brought up a one or more issues here, even if they were not my top issues. (Would have to review to see if there are others that may come up again.)
 * Also, the only way certain reverters seem to stop is if 3 - 4 or us revert their changes enough, with lengthy talk page explanations of why their changes not warranted. So this edit war probably will continue for ever. Meanwhile how do we get new quotes or other changes in there when they pass mediation? Carol Moore 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Ah. If the mediator requested protection, that's fine. I was concerned that a party might have requested it after making an edit to their preferred position. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and, Ah Ha, I am just sitting here watching what is going on. Like John, I too was worried that the quick POV-edit-and-protect request might have been a repeat of the normal revert-and-freeze 'modus operandi', but I am happy that it seems to eminate from good faith.  I do have a question, though.  What do we do if we have edits to make that have not yet been points of contention?  Is the current protect stopping all editing of the article, or just the warred sections.  I have been getting ready to do a serious 'History section'.  Does that mean that new, not-yet-argued edits are on hold.  It might not be the normal modus, but the result would be the same. With trepidation, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement that all edits be brought here first, but considering the fact that people involved seem to edit war instead of discussing, that might not be such a bad idea for now. Its either that or everyone involved try learning the WP:BRD method - which means being bold, getting reverted and then discussing until a resolution is achieved with no edit warring in between.  As far as new quotes or other changes, everyone will need to be patient for the time being -- if we can reach the point that the issues seem resolved or everyone agrees that they will no longer edit war, I'm sure the article can be unprotected at that point.  Shell    babelfish 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say, this is yet another example of the kind of game-playing and disappointing bad faith I've had to put up with for weeks now. If we are "making real progress", it's because I've stopped deleting the entire "Descriptive" section any more. If Carol and I are both editing, then the problem is that "there's been another big revert from " and we need to "get that editor put on one-revert-per-week limitation". If an administrator protects the article on The Wrong Version (i.e. my version), then they have suddenly become involved in the editing dispute, and it must be because I have "requested it after making an edit to their preferred position." It doesn't seem to occur to John Nagle that constant insertions of poorly written original research, along with specious invocations of all sorts of other policies, might be the problem. And yet, here we are, agreed that much of that was being inserted was indeed original research, as I've been saying all along. So, then, who is responsible for these issues after all? Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But what is interesting is you don't bring any issues of alleged WP:OR here and we have to, in order to get an opinion. So we have to wonder why. And we have barely even started with some of problematic quotes you might like. Carol Moore 00:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Patently false, Carol. See, where I raise an OR issue. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Shell, on this one, and most, I am not on Jay's 'side'. I stand with the 'conensus' (of three) against Jay's one-to-date NO vote.  Good point, Carol.  Where is the meat behind Jay's previous complaints?  It seems to me that they have evaporated, become less meaty and quivering in the wind.  Just an observation, mind you, but a very good point, none-the-less. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "meat" behind my complaints "evaporated" when the WP:NOR was removed from the article. That would include stuff like this. And given that the rest of the OR discussions seem to be going my way, I don't think your point is particularly good. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)