Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Proposed decision

2) Neuro-linguistic programming shall be semi-protected indefinitely. Any administrator may vary the level of protection as needed. The talk page may be semi-protected if necessary.

Can an arbitrator please explain this for me. I'm interested how this recommendation has grown out of the findings in this case. It seems like this remedy would be useful for a page that is highly vandalised by non-users. Isn't the complaint being addressed in this NLP arb case exclusively targetting registered users? So, I'm not following how this remedy fits. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect... of imposing an even tighter clique on an article that already has a staunch clique. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is intended to back up any bans imposed under Wikipedia:Probation. If a regular editor (one of the clique) is banned, they should not be able to continue with a sock. This is a bit experimental. I'm not really sure either remedy will work. I notice no other arbitrator has weighed in. A bad sign. Fred Bauder 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You replying is a good sign to me. Much appreciated. I've got it now. I'm hoping you arbitrators have time to resolve this case with due care. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Fred. Further to my previous reply I have read WP:SEMI and I believe it goes against policy to apply this semi to this article for the reasons stated. First of all, the semi protection page doesn't mention probation (which perhaps it should). Secondly, much of the WP:SEMI policy goes against it being applied here. Two things which caught my eye are:

• Semi-protection is only applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem.
• Is not to be used to dispel edit warring or revert wars.

Add to this that the page in question has almost never been vandalised, applying semi-protection seems a bit out of hand. But equally, for all I know, it could be that the WP:SEMI policy needs to be updated with your proposed new uses of the policy. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to use semi-protection to solve problems. The proposal does not conform with general Wikipedia policy, but has not been enacted in any case yet. I have asked for a more flexible tool from the developers but they have chosen to not provide one, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed. Fred Bauder 14:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will read. Thanks for the heads up. Peace. Metta Bubble 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protection_policy#Semi-protection_as_an_arbitration_remedy Fred Bauder 15:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]