Sun 8th June 2008, 4:24am
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 8th June 2008, 3:26am)
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?