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

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>:

> 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?

It doesn't. We should be blocking POV pushers on site. Indefinitely. This is
preferable to protecting the article this way.