To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Discussion and rationale at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Comments here also welcome.
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
On 20/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
There should be a downloadable copy of the full history soon, for forking purposes.
- d.
On 10/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
There should be a downloadable copy of the full history soon, for forking purposes.
Do you have some sort of inside information on this? Just because a dump starts doesn't mean it'll finish.
Anyway, not *that* close. The "indefinite full-protection as the answer to an edit war" meme has only been introduced, for now.
I don't understand what the big deal is with this guy. If the Rush Limbaugh article can get to GA status, what is so special about this Parisian nut?
On 10/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
There should be a downloadable copy of the full history soon, for forking purposes.
Do you have some sort of inside information on this? Just because a dump starts doesn't mean it'll finish.
Anyway, not *that* close. The "indefinite full-protection as the answer to an edit war" meme has only been introduced, for now.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/19/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand what the big deal is with this guy. If the Rush Limbaugh article can get to GA status, what is so special about this Parisian nut?
Because his followers are more akin to a cult than a political movement.
-Matt
On 10/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand what the big deal is with this guy. If the Rush Limbaugh article can get to GA status, what is so special about this Parisian nut?
Because his followers are more akin to a cult than a political movement.
As are his detractors, maybe even more so. When two people mentioned in an article are among those edit warring over the contents of said article, there are major problems.
If Wikipedia is going to survive, it needs to come up with a way to ban the people who don't follow policy, not ban everyone who isn't an admin.
On 10/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
I think there's still cause for hope: we have something like two million articles that aren't about Lyndon LaRouche.
Some of the people involved in the LaRouche article are explicitly out to destroy Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe if successful in destroying it for one article they'll just leave.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Some of the people involved in the LaRouche article are explicitly out to destroy Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe if successful in destroying it for one article they'll just leave.
Really? So ban them. Seriously. Who is it? That's unacceptable. And followers of theirs, just ban them too. This isn't that hard a decision at all.
On 22/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Some of the people involved in the LaRouche article are explicitly out to destroy Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe if successful in destroying it for one article they'll just leave.
Really? So ban them. Seriously. Who is it? That's unacceptable. And followers of theirs, just ban them too. This isn't that hard a decision at all.
If you read the ArbCom decisions on this matter, you'll see that every alternate solution so far in this thread and probably many of the ones to come have in fact been discussed or implemented.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 22/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Some of the people involved in the LaRouche article are explicitly out to destroy Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe if successful in destroying it for one article they'll just leave.
Really? So ban them. Seriously. Who is it? That's unacceptable. And followers of theirs, just ban them too. This isn't that hard a decision at all.
If you read the ArbCom decisions on this matter, you'll see that every alternate solution so far in this thread and probably many of the ones to come have in fact been discussed or implemented.
Hmm, reading through them now. Yikes.
On 10/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/10/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Some of the people involved in the LaRouche article are explicitly out to destroy Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe if successful in destroying it for one article they'll just leave.
Really? So ban them. Seriously. Who is it? That's unacceptable. And followers of theirs, just ban them too. This isn't that hard a decision at all.
If you read the ArbCom decisions on this matter, you'll see that every alternate solution so far in this thread and probably many of the ones to come have in fact been discussed or implemented.
Apparently the better alternate solutions have been in the "discussed" rather than "implemented" category.
LaRouche makes Rush Limbaugh look like a model of sanity and moderation. LaRouche's ideas are so bizarre it isn't even clear where to start. For example, he's tried to claim that [[Squaring the circle]] is somehow doable.(disclaimer I got this second have from a bunch of his followers, not from him directly). It seemed to focus on being one of many examples of what would be a valid solution if one were allowed things other than a straight edge and compass. Bottom line: He's close to a grade A crank.
Quoting Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com:
I don't understand what the big deal is with this guy. If the Rush Limbaugh article can get to GA status, what is so special about this Parisian nut?
On 10/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
There should be a downloadable copy of the full history soon, for forking purposes.
Do you have some sort of inside information on this? Just because a dump starts doesn't mean it'll finish.
Anyway, not *that* close. The "indefinite full-protection as the answer to an edit war" meme has only been introduced, for now.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There should be a downloadable copy of the full history soon, for forking purposes.
Do you have some sort of inside information on this? Just because a dump starts doesn't mean it'll finish.
http://leuksman.com/log/ is my s3kr1t inside source.
- d.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On 10/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
There should be a downloadable copy of the full history soon, for forking purposes.
Do you have some sort of inside information on this? Just because a dump starts doesn't mean it'll finish.
Anyway, not *that* close. The "indefinite full-protection as the answer to an edit war" meme has only been introduced, for now.
No, it is a meme that has come up many times before. This is the first time it has ever been implemented by an admin to my knowledge unless it was for salting purposes or temporary salting pending replacement with a more acceptable article. This is a disturbing event.
On 10/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is closer than I had thought.
I think there's still cause for hope: we have something like two million articles that aren't about Lyndon LaRouche.
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
On the "wrong version" no doubt.
On 20/10/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
On the "wrong version" no doubt.
The right wrong version or the wrong wrong version?
- d.
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
This all hinges on the word "indefinitely".
Did you simply mean "without taking advantage of the (comparatively new) feature which allows the protector to specify an expiration date"?
Or did you mean "such that the protector intends for it to remain protected until the cows come home?"
The latter would be, as Anthony has put strikingly into perspective, an outrageous alternative to blocking the edit warriors (who will undoubtedly reconvene themselves on a different page).
—C.W.
On 10/20/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
This all hinges on the word "indefinitely".
Did you simply mean "without taking advantage of the (comparatively new) feature which allows the protector to specify an expiration date"?
If so, all my comments (and this very thread) are much ado about nothing.
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Or did you mean "such that the protector intends for it to remain protected until the cows come home?"
The latter would be, as Anthony has put strikingly into perspective, an outrageous alternative to blocking the edit warriors (who will undoubtedly reconvene themselves on a different page).
Especially considering that we've got some new quality control mechanisms coming down the pipe that may make it even easier to keep vandals and POV-pushers at bay.
On 20/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Charlotte Webb wrote:
Or did you mean "such that the protector intends for it to remain protected until the cows come home?" The latter would be, as Anthony has put strikingly into perspective, an outrageous alternative to blocking the edit warriors (who will undoubtedly reconvene themselves on a different page).
Especially considering that we've got some new quality control mechanisms coming down the pipe that may make it even easier to keep vandals and POV-pushers at bay.
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.
- d.
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
On 20/10/2007, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Go for it. Current Wikipedia submission in the queue is the Volapuk Wikipedia fiasco.
(Volapuk: conlang with about 20 speakers, whose wikipedia is over 100,000 articles via bot translations.)
- d.
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go for it.
Grumble. I probably shouldn't, only make the situation more heated... besides, does anyone who isn't a wikipedian really care... grumble..... fine, it's in the Firehose!
--Oskar
On 20/10/2007, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go for it.
Grumble. I probably shouldn't, only make the situation more heated... besides, does anyone who isn't a wikipedian really care... grumble..... fine, it's in the Firehose!
I actually suspect that "Wikipedia is very tolerant, but doesn't put up with rubbish forever" will find favour with the general public.
- d.
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go for it.
Grumble. I probably shouldn't, only make the situation more heated... besides, does anyone who isn't a wikipedian really care... grumble..... fine, it's in the Firehose!
I actually suspect that "Wikipedia is very tolerant, but doesn't put up with rubbish forever" will find favour with the general public.
As would "Wikipedia abandons open editing", probably.
On 10/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go for it.
Grumble. I probably shouldn't, only make the situation more heated... besides, does anyone who isn't a wikipedian really care... grumble..... fine, it's in the Firehose!
I actually suspect that "Wikipedia is very tolerant, but doesn't put up with rubbish forever" will find favour with the general public.
As would "Wikipedia abandons open editing", probably.
This is far from the first article to be protected.
I do not hope or expect this to in any way be "permanent". But I do not intend to turn it of in (a week, a month, etc). There are large issues here with extremely persistent extemely abusive organized external groups. The first Arbcom case on this topic was 3 plus years ago, with 3 more since including the proposed one being reviewed for acceptance now. There has been at least one blocked user who's sockpuppeted fairly continuously for years on the topic.
If that is not tedentious extended edit warring, I do not know what is.
As David Gerard mentions on ANI, the Flagged Revisions software upgrade may render this unnecessary, or other policy or operational changes could have the same effect.
As I noted on ANI - the article is not frozen. Any administrator can still edit it during the protection. If there are legitimate concerns or improvements desired, they can be discussed and justified on the talk page, and made live by any admin.
On 10/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This is far from the first article to be protected.
Isn't it the first one which is fully protected where admins are encouraged to edit it? Full protection was around for a long time, but in the beginning at least admins were discouraged from editing a protected page.
As David Gerard mentions on ANI, the Flagged Revisions software upgrade may render this unnecessary
That'd probably require a Good or Featured version of the article.
, or other policy or operational changes could have the same effect.
As I noted on ANI - the article is not frozen. Any administrator can still edit it during the protection.
That's precisely what makes this page protection so different.
Anyway, I don't particularly care about the protection one way or another. I don't think it's a cause of problems so much as a symptom of them.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go for it.
Grumble. I probably shouldn't, only make the situation more heated... besides, does anyone who isn't a wikipedian really care... grumble..... fine, it's in the Firehose!
I actually suspect that "Wikipedia is very tolerant, but doesn't put up with rubbish forever" will find favour with the general public.
As would "Wikipedia abandons open editing", probably.
This protection is a bad idea, but submitting this sort of story to slashdot or such is almost as bad an idea. We need to deal with this and stop it without the drama and trolling that occurs when these things get highly publicized.
In any event, the solution to the LaRouche article is to have more admins keep watch and block troublemakers. That works for other controversial articles and I see no reason why this one should be any different.
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?
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.
On 10/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
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.
As I understand it, this is how protection has always worked - at least until the software supported automatic expiry of protections. Until then, all articles were protected indefinitely until the dispute was cleared up. This is still a perfectly valid thing to do today.
What perturbs me is why announce this to the mailing list if this is just a routine protection? Did the policies on page protection change to mandate a time limit for all protections?
Johnleemk
On 10/20/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
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.
As I understand it, this is how protection has always worked - at least until the software supported automatic expiry of protections. Until then, all articles were protected indefinitely until the dispute was cleared up. This is still a perfectly valid thing to do today.
What perturbs me is why announce this to the mailing list if this is just a routine protection? Did the policies on page protection change to mandate a time limit for all protections?
Johnleemk
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious abuse case.
On 10/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious abuse case.
Even so, this is not what we've ever done! What this is is an effective elevation of admins into a specially protected "super"-editor class that have full powers to decide and control what goes in an article. That is NOT what an admin is supposed to do, article contents have always been decided by community consensus. It is a foundational issue, right up there with Free Content and NPOV.
This is counter to what wikipedia is. We're not Citizendium.
--Oskar
On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious
abuse
case.
Even so, this is not what we've ever done! What this is is an effective elevation of admins into a specially protected "super"-editor class that have full powers to decide and control what goes in an article. That is NOT what an admin is supposed to do, article contents have always been decided by community consensus. It is a foundational issue, right up there with Free Content and NPOV.
This is counter to what wikipedia is. We're not Citizendium.
--Oskar
If this has to become a regular occurrence then we will clearly have lost a core battle somewhere. I do not disagree with that point.
This is an *extremely* unusual case. There are very few organized and persistent campaigns by fringe groups to significantly attack knowledge on Wikipedia; this is one of them. They are not editing to improve the state of knowledge in the world or represented on Wikipedia. They're using it as a venue to fight their battles.
Denying them this venue to fight in is orthogonal to our goal to be a reference source, open to contributions. Letting them fight here is contrary to our goals. Unfortunately, we need to take this article (and potentially others on the topic) "out of play" and end their use in the fight.
Groups and their individual members always will want to slant Wikipedia; we're all human. We have lots of policy and precedent to deal with that. But extended, organized campaigns are another thing entirely.
On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious
abuse
case.
Even so, this is not what we've ever done! What this is is an effective elevation of admins into a specially protected "super"-editor class that have full powers to decide and control what goes in an article. That is NOT what an admin is supposed to do, article contents have always been decided by community consensus. It is a foundational issue, right up there with Free Content and NPOV.
This is counter to what wikipedia is. We're not Citizendium.
--Oskar
on 10/20/07 6:58 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If this has to become a regular occurrence then we will clearly have lost a core battle somewhere. I do not disagree with that point.
This is an *extremely* unusual case. There are very few organized and persistent campaigns by fringe groups to significantly attack knowledge on Wikipedia; this is one of them. They are not editing to improve the state of knowledge in the world or represented on Wikipedia. They're using it as a venue to fight their battles.
Denying them this venue to fight in is orthogonal to our goal to be a reference source, open to contributions. Letting them fight here is contrary to our goals. Unfortunately, we need to take this article (and potentially others on the topic) "out of play" and end their use in the fight.
Groups and their individual members always will want to slant Wikipedia; we're all human. We have lots of policy and precedent to deal with that. But extended, organized campaigns are another thing entirely.
George, this does, however, look and feel like a very slippery slope. Is there not another way to deal with this without what seems to be an abandonment of a very basic principle of the Project? By taking this course of action you are allowing them to control us.
Marc Riddell
On 10/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious
abuse
case.
Even so, this is not what we've ever done! What this is is an effective elevation of admins into a specially protected "super"-editor class that have full powers to decide and control what goes in an article. That is NOT what an admin is supposed to do, article contents have always been decided by community consensus. It is a foundational issue, right up there with Free Content and NPOV.
This is counter to what wikipedia is. We're not Citizendium.
--Oskar
on 10/20/07 6:58 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If this has to become a regular occurrence then we will clearly have
lost a
core battle somewhere. I do not disagree with that point.
This is an *extremely* unusual case. There are very few organized and persistent campaigns by fringe groups to significantly attack knowledge
on
Wikipedia; this is one of them. They are not editing to improve the
state
of knowledge in the world or represented on Wikipedia. They're using it
as
a venue to fight their battles.
Denying them this venue to fight in is orthogonal to our goal to be a reference source, open to contributions. Letting them fight here is contrary to our goals. Unfortunately, we need to take this article (and potentially others on the topic) "out of play" and end their use in the fight.
Groups and their individual members always will want to slant Wikipedia; we're all human. We have lots of policy and precedent to deal with
that.
But extended, organized campaigns are another thing entirely.
George, this does, however, look and feel like a very slippery slope. Is there not another way to deal with this without what seems to be an abandonment of a very basic principle of the Project? By taking this course of action you are allowing them to control us.
Marc Riddell
It's changing the nature of the control or influence they have.
They already have a degree of control - numerous accounts, many of them sockpuppets, editing and inserting POV and removing material they consider hostile.
The point of Wikipedia is that giving that control widely to everybody will build an encyclopedia, data repository, positive community project.
But there are exceptions. We have to ban editors, protect articles (semi or full), and other actions already in response to numerous types of vandalism and abuse, some of it random, some focused or organized.
We've made exceptions already, because it would be insane not to, because there are enough vandals and easy enough scripting of editing that pretty much any talented individual who wanted to utterly destroy Wikipedia could if we never took any defensive measures such as blocking IPs or locking articles. These defensive measures are not controversial here and now.
One can call it a slippery slope, but it's a slope the project has always been balanced on, for obvious reasons.
It is an entirely valid question to ask if this new measure is a better balance for our core goals (being the best encyclopedia and having the most open editing we practically can), or the start of rolling down the hill.
If this does not work or has significant negative effects, then I will have made an error, and hopefully I and others will see that and correct it. I do not assert that this could not possibly be a mistake. In my current judgement, this is a good thing to do now, and necessary. I invite ongoing review and discussion.
On 10/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious
abuse
case.
Even so, this is not what we've ever done! What this is is an effective elevation of admins into a specially protected "super"-editor class that have full powers to decide and control what goes in an article. That is NOT what an admin is supposed to do, article contents have always been decided by community consensus. It is a foundational issue, right up there with Free Content and NPOV.
This is counter to what wikipedia is. We're not Citizendium.
--Oskar
on 10/20/07 6:58 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If this has to become a regular occurrence then we will clearly have
lost a
core battle somewhere. I do not disagree with that point.
This is an *extremely* unusual case. There are very few organized and persistent campaigns by fringe groups to significantly attack knowledge
on
Wikipedia; this is one of them. They are not editing to improve the
state
of knowledge in the world or represented on Wikipedia. They're using it
as
a venue to fight their battles.
Denying them this venue to fight in is orthogonal to our goal to be a reference source, open to contributions. Letting them fight here is contrary to our goals. Unfortunately, we need to take this article (and potentially others on the topic) "out of play" and end their use in the fight.
Groups and their individual members always will want to slant Wikipedia; we're all human. We have lots of policy and precedent to deal with
that.
But extended, organized campaigns are another thing entirely.
George, this does, however, look and feel like a very slippery slope. Is there not another way to deal with this without what seems to be an abandonment of a very basic principle of the Project? By taking this course of action you are allowing them to control us.
Marc Riddell
on 10/20/07 7:56 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's changing the nature of the control or influence they have.
They already have a degree of control - numerous accounts, many of them sockpuppets, editing and inserting POV and removing material they consider hostile.
The point of Wikipedia is that giving that control widely to everybody will build an encyclopedia, data repository, positive community project.
But there are exceptions. We have to ban editors, protect articles (semi or full), and other actions already in response to numerous types of vandalism and abuse, some of it random, some focused or organized.
We've made exceptions already, because it would be insane not to, because there are enough vandals and easy enough scripting of editing that pretty much any talented individual who wanted to utterly destroy Wikipedia could if we never took any defensive measures such as blocking IPs or locking articles. These defensive measures are not controversial here and now.
One can call it a slippery slope, but it's a slope the project has always been balanced on, for obvious reasons.
It is an entirely valid question to ask if this new measure is a better balance for our core goals (being the best encyclopedia and having the most open editing we practically can), or the start of rolling down the hill.
If this does not work or has significant negative effects, then I will have made an error, and hopefully I and others will see that and correct it. I do not assert that this could not possibly be a mistake. In my current judgement, this is a good thing to do now, and necessary. I invite ongoing review and discussion.
George, thank you for your clarity - and for your well-made argument. I trust your judgment.
Marc
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, George Herbert wrote:
This is an *extremely* unusual case.
Not linking to Wikipedia Review was also an extremely unusual case.
Of course. extremely unusual cases have a way of expanding their range to cover slightly less extreme unusual cases, up to the point where it's being done constantly even though every step along the path seemed justified.
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.
On 10/20/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
This all hinges on the word "indefinitely".
Did you simply mean "without taking advantage of the (comparatively new) feature which allows the protector to specify an expiration date"?
Or did you mean "such that the protector intends for it to remain protected until the cows come home?"
The latter would be, as Anthony has put strikingly into perspective, an outrageous alternative to blocking the edit warriors (who will undoubtedly reconvene themselves on a different page).
—C.W.
I intend to leave the protection on until we are able to otherwise effectively terminate the ongoing edit war.
I hope and expect not to have to enter the dairy industry in my retirement.
But I don't know precisely what shape or what schedule to expect for the more permanent fix for this particular edit war.
On 10/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
It seems to be an extreme case that indeed that calls for some unusual measures. How about appointing or electing an NPOV editing group for this article who have authority to revert/block as needed? Then the article itself could remain open or semi-protected.
On 10/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
To attempt to end a many-year-old edit war, I have indefinitely full-protected the article [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]].
It seems to be an extreme case that indeed that calls for some unusual measures. How about appointing or electing an NPOV editing group for this article who have authority to revert/block as needed? Then the article itself could remain open or semi-protected.
This particular scenario, i.e. an article whose future updates must be pre-approved by admins, is extreme, but it is also in the same vane as sighted versions (Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions) and other proposals that will have the effect of exerting greater control on the content submission process. For sighted versions, editting continues as is, but the version made visible to not-logged-in visitors is controlled by "Surveyors" who approve specific editions.
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality. There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
So I for one welcome the move to stop wasting time on unproductive disputes and consider the use of extended protection.
Ultimately though I think Wikipedia will need to develop a better toolkit for dealing with our mature content areas where large portions of the traffic is deleterious rather than productive.
-Robert Rohde
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality. There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
Hear hear. See [[List of countries]] for an example!
On 22/10/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality. There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
Hear hear. See [[List of countries]] for an example!
Looks like a prime candidate for semi-protection...
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 02:27 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
On 22/10/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality. There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
Hear hear. See [[List of countries]] for an example!
Looks like a prime candidate for semi-protection...
Tell that to the admin on [[WP:RFP]] who told me to "Just watchlist and revert any vandalism."...
On 22/10/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 02:27 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
On 22/10/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality. There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
Hear hear. See [[List of countries]] for an example!
Looks like a prime candidate for semi-protection...
Tell that to the admin on [[WP:RFP]] who told me to "Just watchlist and revert any vandalism."...
Well, it was just vandalised again, so I took the obvious courses of action.
On 22/10/2007, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/10/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 02:27 +0100, James Farrar wrote:
On 22/10/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Personally, I feel that as individual articles mature, imposing greater control over the content development process is a natural and in many cases neccesary part of Wikipedia's evolution as we move towards greater quality. There are many high profile, well-developed articles where well over 50% of the recent edits are consumed by vandalism and combatting vandalism, and that is a wasteful use of people's time and resources.
Hear hear. See [[List of countries]] for an example!
Looks like a prime candidate for semi-protection...
Tell that to the admin on [[WP:RFP]] who told me to "Just watchlist and revert any vandalism."...
Well, it was just vandalised again, so I took the obvious courses of action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#List_of_...
Semi-protected for a week, so I'll be watching what happens after that period expires.