Quoting George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com:
On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@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?
It doesn't. We should be blocking POV pushers on site. Indefinitely. This is preferable to protecting the article this way.