If you include all of Ted Franks proxy edits - words that encourage other users to alter the Sicko page - then the count reaches 120-130 easy. I've not seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. And it's so blatant, too.

I've been arguing against the silly "no links to attack sites" policy for months... I even wrote an essay about it.

Moonie: Honestly, I find it hard to believe this is unique - just loud.

Dan: Yes. Again, not every admin is on the warpath. But the sociological structure of Wikipedia also breeds and empowers the fanatics, which is troubling.

Looks like the discussion has been archived to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive290#MichaelMoore.com_-_hypocrisy.3F , if you want to update your links. [There are actually two Michaelmoore.com issues on that page.]

BTW, here's an interesting possible Wikipedia development: Flagged revisions.
Described in somewhat alarming terms here and here, it sounds as though admins will be gaining even more power over what ordinary users can see and edit.

Interesting. From a software standpoint, MediaWiki is finally supporting what CMS's generally support, and I what I called for here. If it's another stake in the coffin of wikipedia as a free-for-all, I don't think that's a bad thing, but yes, obviously, that puts more relative power in the hands of the editors, which, of course, might impel otherwise disengaged internauts (present company included) to get involved in wiki governance.

Thanks, Lis, I updated the link.

I assume they're talking about "stable versions", which has been talked about forever. I'll believe it when I see it.