[WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

[Rudy Koot]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 19/04/06, Ben Lowe <ben.lowe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Is this really a surprise?  I remember always hearing the best way to make a
>>book popular is to get it banned; why should this be any different on
>>Wikipedia?  For people looking for controversy and scandal on the
>>encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the two or three articles that *no one --
>>NO ONE -- can edit for fear of eternal exile *are way more interesting than
>>the more-than-a-million other articles.  I suspect more Wikipedians (and
>>slashdotters) know about [[Brian Peppers]] than [[Jordanhill railway
>>station]].  Is OFFICE necessary?  Sure, probably.  Wikipedia definitely
>>needs to be responsible, both in terms of its own liability. But if Danny
>>wants to use WP:OFFICE without controversy, he needs it to be normalized,
>>not hidden.  People need to simply get used to it.  The only way that
>>WP:OFFICE is going to become non-controversial is if it's openly used.
> 
> 
> Here's another solution. Make it possible for Danny to silently
> protect a page without it being unprotectable. Communicate a policy to
> all admins that if an admin discovers that a page has been protected
> in such a way, that he should keep it to himself, or risk desysopping.
> 
> The ordinary user will simply see a protected page. Admins, unless
> they actually try and unprotect it, will be none the wiser. And if
> they do try, perhaps a message should alert them to keep it
> confidential.
> 
> But that's just breeding conspiracy theories, I know.
> 
> Steve

What about adding another protection "level". Instead protecting under a 
edit=sysop, move=sysop, have Danny protect the pages under edit=board, 
move=board, so admins can't "accidentally" unprotect a WP:OFFICE 
protected article?


--Ruud