There was a community poll. Please see the foundation-l thread: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/thread.html#69191

Removing "vandalism" from the bug title.

de10011 wrote:

It's really not fair to call it vandalism Mathais. This was a community operating after consensus within itself. If you agree or not, you still can not call someone's decision vandalism based on a matter of opinion.

There's also some CSS that prevents any page content from being visible if JavaScript is off -- instead of seeing the protest page about Italian law, you just get a big empty white box in the content area. :(

A change like this (showing pages other than the notice) requires community
consensus. Please link. :)

I think it's on https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia but I couldn't look it up atm

Created attachment 9156
blank it.wikipedia.org page with JavaScript off

Attached:

mathias.schindler wrote:

I clearified the title in order to make sure that blocking is the bug and the request is to remove the blocking-by-redirect. Not the other way around.

Without calling it Vandalism.

andreengels wrote:

Without any statement as to whether or not this should be repaired - there seems to be a second action taken to ensure that editing is impossible. When I use the bot, it loads pages normally, but cannot save pages giving an API unknownerror ``titleblacklist-custom-sciopero''

beau wrote:

Edits are blocked using Titleblacklist extension.

T(In reply to comment #9)

Without any statement as to whether or not this should be repaired - there
seems to be a second action taken to ensure that editing is impossible. When I
use the bot, it loads pages normally, but cannot save pages giving an API
unknownerror ``titleblacklist-custom-sciopero''

That action has been taken to avoid unseen vandalism in the background.

Hi guys, we disabled all edits for non-sysop via titleblacklist, I'm updating banners and other stuffs just disabling both css and js.

It's the strongest kind of protest we can made, but it's needed.

if community wants to make a protest by taking down the site, they should f'in fork the site and the take down their fork.

this is a service and not some drama experiment

Please close the bug as RESOLVED WONTFIX immediately. Bugzilla is not a place to discuss the case.

Wikimedia developers should not decide about the situation themselves, but should observe the decision of the Italian Wikipedia community *and* of the Wikimedia Foundation, when they will publish their stance on the matter.

Looks like the discussion page on https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia is legible again (there's something funky so I can't use the scroll wheel on this page though o_O). I've asked folks on the internal mailing list discussion to see if this & any other relevant links can be made visible from the protest pages so people not already intimately familiar with this process know where the decision came from, and who made it on their behalf.

tomasz, the site is broken, someone has to fix it. I didn't know that community can shut down the website at their will.

(In reply to comment #16)

tomasz, the site is broken, someone has to fix it. I didn't know that community
can shut down the website at their will.

Don't worry, in the next future it will be shut down by italian police ;)

headbomb_v wrote:

If the servers are on American grounds, operated by an American company, then it really shouldn't matter what the Italian laws are, I would think.

millosh wrote:

(In reply to comment #18)

If the servers are on American grounds, operated by an American company, then
it really shouldn't matter what the Italian laws are, I would think.

But Italian police could intimidate editors and, eventually, force invisibility of Italian Wikipedia. Thus, what happens now in Italy matters to Italian Wikipedia anyway.

resolving WONTFIX since this isn't something Wikimedia needs to solve. It should be solved on-wiki. Open a separate (policy) bug if you want the WMF to override community consensus in cases like this.