[WikiEN-l] [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]] indefinitely full protected

[George Herbert]

On 10/20/07, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/20/07, David Gerard <dgerard at 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 at gmail.com