On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would assume "indefinite" to mean
"indefinite", i.e. without a fixed
ending date, rather than rather than "forever." The whole point of
the arbcom ruling it was protected under was roving gangs of LaRouche
cultists and their endless arrays of sockpuppets, and what to do about
them.
This is from the talk-page:
==Page protected==
Due to continuation of the ongoing slow-motion edit war, per Arbcom
decisions and related Wikipedia policy as discussed above, this
article is now fully protected. Only administrators can edit the
article.
Other editors who want to propose changes are free to describe the
change here on the Talk page and discuss why it is a good idea.
Administrators who watch this article should review such requested
changes and are encouraged to make changes that are supported by
Wikipedia policy or the improvement of the article as a whole.
Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure as hell sounds a like a permanent admins-only policy choice to
me. The arbcom decided this, that we should suspend one of the five
foundational issues, and only allow admins to decide what should be in
an article?
I'm sorry, but this is completely fucking outrageous. I thought that
admins just carried an extra mop and bucket, that they were just
custodians with a little more responsibility but that normal users
have just as big of a role in trying to work out some sort of
consensus.
I don't mind so much semi-protection and aggressive blocking, because
the decision process is still essentially the "wiki way". This here is
a complete sell-out of what wikipedia is, what wikipedia stands for.
In my almost three and half years here, I've never seen a concession
to core principles even close to this, and I'm surprised there isn't
more outrage over this. I hope someone submits this as a slashdot
story with a flashy headline that draws the flaming posts a throng of
upset geeks who don't really know how wikipedia works. Honestly, this
situation deserves to be more widely known.
--Oskar
As I said in my other reply, this is far from the first article space full
protection. It may be the first one implimented consciously and
intentionally without a time limit on it, however.
How many years of persistent, organized abuse does it take to justify
sterner measures?
If this is unnecessary a month from now, tomorrow, or next year, I or
another administrator can unprotect. I don't have any authority to order it
truly permanently protected; Jimmy or the Foundation or Arbcom might, but I
don't. All I can do it state the case for the situation and see if the rest
of the en.wp admin community agree and leave it, or disagree and overturn
the protection.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com