Global Warming articles fully protected, A new precedent? Options

[Cla68]

Raul654 fully protected 10 global warming protected pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...g_related_pages

[Giggy]

Better link; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages

[Milton Roe]

Raul654 fully protected 10 global warming protected pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...g_related_pages

Full protection is the logical next step. And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody noted that when sprotected, this page had 15 vandalisms in a month, or one every other day. My god. But it still overloaded Raul654, who was busy checkusering new name accounts until he was going to bust, just from swatting this guy who kept adding stuff about cow farts. Nothing to do now but cast these and related articles in amber, until the sockmaster of 500 socks (Raul has counted) loses interest. Which will be, about when we Win the War on Terror ™.

Actually there is ONE thing that hasn't been tried on Wikipedia. Flags and expert review. But nobody has told Raul about this shocking possiblity yet, so he's doing the next best thing. Stopping all editing on these articles until the trolls lose interest. Thus, so far as editing goes, this particular set of articles might as well be in the Britannica. So Wikipedia is now the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except for articles vandalised more often than every other day, which Raul654 has had to watch, and has caregiver-burnout, regarding. (wheeze). That's a lot of conditionals.

You know, there are some of us who've been suggesting (perennially) that the vandalism load on Wikipedia makes it untennable in its basic policies. And we've been told that we're being nonwikipedian, and that these issues are non-negociable, per Jimbo.

Well, IAR, eh, Raul? But never ever admit that you were ever wrong. Or could possibly be wrong in the future. Or that any amount of rethinking is necessary. No. No. No. How could you otherwise maintain that you're so very much smarter than the rest of us?

[Kato]

As I wrote the other week, Raul is the anti-Wikipedian

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

Raul is a weird kind of anti-Wikipedian. Judging by his ongoing antics, he is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each the non-negotiable tenets.

He's a marvel.

[Milton Roe]

As I wrote the other week, Raul is the anti-Wikipedian

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

Raul is a weird kind of anti-Wikipedian. Judging by his ongoing antics, he is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each the non-negotiable tenets.

He's a marvel.

But it's amazing what a checkuser can get away with. Here we have a bunch of other admins, standing hands anxiously clasped politely together, asking "Oh, don't you think you went a little far there?" "A tad overzealous, perhaps?"

One of my favorite admins, one-who-must-not-be-named lest he be knifed in the back for being favorably mentioned on WR, said "Er, did you happen to make this important decision alone?"

[Giggy]

One of my favorite admins, one-who-must-not-be-named lest he be knifed in the back for being favorably mentioned on WR, said "Er, did you happen to make this important decision alone?"

Dang, I do wish I could find where that was quote from.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The full protection is not unprecedented. Views of Lyndon LaRouche has been fully protected since last October and Lyndon LaRouche since November, due to the Hatfield vs. McCoy action between Chip Berlet, Dennis King and Will Beback, on the one side, and assorted LaRouche defenders on the other.

[Proabivouac]

As I wrote the other week, Raul is the anti-Wikipedian

God, he's a pathetic little man. PS Raul check WP:BLOCK, especially the part about blocking users you are in a dispute with.

Raul is a weird kind of anti-Wikipedian. Judging by his ongoing antics, he is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each the non-negotiable tenets.

He's a marvel.

I stand by all my above statements - she is notable for one thing (signing the petition), we do have articles on people notable for just one thing (and I named two classes of those articles - one-hit-wonder musicians

So basically 1) he's rejecting the core of BLP. - The Lightsaber guy is a "one hit wonder," etc. 2) Wikipedia editors are deciding what is a "hit." Are we to pretend that anyone outside of Wikipedia's echo chamber thinks, "Oh R. Picard, that nutty creationist…"?

So the anti-ID editors are claiming a whitewash of facts otherwise known to all? Okay, then show me - any one of you - how did you first learn of Ms. Picard? Who among you - and I imagine there must be at least one of you - can say that you knew this name and her stance on Darwinism/creationism before joining WIkipedia?

He/she who can step forward and say this is the successful manipulator of dialog, worthy of emulation.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 8th June 2008, 9:41am

[Cla68]

Raul appears to be losing the resulting debate over full vs semi-protection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...tection_for_now

[JohnA]

Even full protection wouldn't stop the most persistent POV vandal, William Connelley.

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

"vandalism is the price we pay for freedom" William M. Connolley

[Sceptre]

"vandalism is the price we pay for freedom" William M. Connolley

Thought it was a buck seventy-five.