Poetlister wrote:If the WMF had any sense, they'd arrange for all really controversial articles to be locked so the argument was restricted to the talk pages.
Um......what exactly do you mean by "arrange"?
I think what you meant to say is .....encourage the Wikipedia community to consider the merits of a proposal to expand their existing protection policy to allow
To consider those merits they'd of course have to be able to understand what you mean by "really controversial" - is this either an intent to propose wholesale adoption of pre-emptive protection for entire classes of articles based on some pre-agreed metric of indicative controversiality, or merely an adjustment to the measure of how much disruption there needs to be in order to trigger full protection.
If this is what you meant, then it is pretty debatable whether the WMF would see much sense in it (what's in it for them?). And if they did, it is equally debatable the community would do it. The latter seems more likely than the former, and indeed that may one day in the near future emerge as a spontaneous proposal give the way the Wikipedia community seems to be evolving in its views on how open they should be, but this seems to be taking us far away from the central premise of what the WMF should/would do if it "had any sense".
If you meant something else entirely, please provide enough detail so that a serious critic who actually knows what they're talking about, can comment.
These people consider themselves the pre-eminent experts in the field. Bunch of fucking dummies is what they are.