Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

old discussion without a header

Anthony has overrun this page with frivilous unprotection requests. Would anyone (besides him) object to me cleaning them out? →Raul654 01:52, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

My unprotection requests are not frivilous. Can someone unprotect this page? Anthony DiPierro 11:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oops. It shouldn't have been protected - I protected it while I was cleaning it out, and forgot to unprotect it. PM unprotected it. As to the validity of your complaints, when you request unprotection after 5 minutes with no comments on the talk page, that is frivilous. Not only that, but a legitimate request got lost for 2 days because of the number of your complaints. I suggest that if you want your requests taken seriously, you make fewer of them with more merit to each. →Raul654 13:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's kind of a problem that the page to request unprotection is itself protected. For instance, I would like to request Samuel P. Huntington and Torture and murder in Iraq be unprotected. They were protected for dubious reasons by 172 (and randomly reverted), ostensibly to stop an edit war which had ended 30+ hours earlier. For the latter article, partisans on both sides have said the conflict is over and it should be unprotected, but he has not yielded to any of these requests. [Moved to main page VV 19:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)] -- VV 10:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Block anons from vandalizing hotly debated articles

I think articles known to be targeted by biased edits should be nominated for Wikipedia:Articles only to be edited by logged in users. Get-back-world-respect 23:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Why? Because logged in users are never biased? I can't see that helping anything. Most edit wars occur between logged in users. Angela. 23:21, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I can name several pages where anons repeatedly logged in only to include biased edits, e.g. 205.188.116.206 / 205.188.117.14 at Forbes family, 205.188.116.144 / 152.163.253.99 at Naushon Island, 205.188.116.65 / 205.188.117.11 at Brice Lalonde, 152.163.253.2 at John Kerry, 68.251.113.43, 212.178.7.53, and 144.32.177.111 at George W. Bush. Most of the edits are so shameful that no one would dare to make them when logged in. Get-back-world-respect 03:14, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think they are less likely to do this logged in? Being logged in gives you more anonymity, not less. You might be interested in the discussion at meta:anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles and its talk page). Angela. 06:54, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to resurrect this suggestion - amongst my watch list I've got Oliver Cromwell (great man. pity about the head!) and Ethel and Julius Rosenberg - there are others (usually similar slightly controversial political figures). These articles are still usefully evolving (though not, I agree, 'hotly debated', except in C17 Putney) and should not tbe locked-out. But in the last two months there have been increasingly-frequent minor vandalisms (eg espionage changed to sexaul intercourse) _all_ done by un-logged-in users...

:-) I rest my caseLinuxlad 15:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, in fact I came here looking for exactly this. I came here after looking at the history page of George W. Bush. I counted only 3 legitimate edits out of about 80-90 since being unprotected. Everything else was vandalism and reverts. All of the vandalism was by anon users. It really needs to be {{aprotected}}, with "a" meaning anon. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 14:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who feels stressed out from reverting all that vandalism, feel free to take a Wikibreak. I can heartily recommend it. :-)
Otherwise, please, people, try to put things in perspective. Even if 99% of all edits to an article were vandalism by anons, it still wouldn't warrant making the 1% of genuine anon edits in all possibility extinct by demanding that people go sign up for an account first. To anyone who tries to drag out the old "but registration is so easy and takes only a few seconds" argument: that's a few seconds too many. I know how often I stop by a website that requires me to jump through just this one little hoop before I can fully enjoy it—and I always click them away with nary a second thought, because the web is too big and my day is too short to waste time on accommodating people who think they're entitled to some sort of commitment. If putting up hurdles will do anything, it's breed more people who are determined to really cause trouble—and we have more than enough of those already.
There is no such thing as "too much vandalism", there's only vandalism and more vandalism. Protection from anons? When would you apply that? When would you lift it? How about "anything with lots of edits" and "never" as likely answers? It's all in your head. We've got enough people covering it. Always have, always will. Yes, the histories of some articles look like warzones, Wikipedia is not the tidy place we'd like it to be, and despite our best efforts, readers get confronted with vandalized articles sometimes! Boo hoo. That's what you get for running a wiki encyclopedia, which as we all know is a crazy idea that cannot work... JRM · Talk 19:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have thought about it and now disagree with aprotection. To the "but registration is so easy and takes only a few seconds," that is why aprotection will not stop vandals, they will just register and then they can vandalize again. However, this does not carry over to protection of articles, because only admins can edit protected articles, and a registered vandal cannot easily become an admin; but an anon vandal can easily become a registered vandal, so aprotection will not work. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wording change

Why is there still no discussion here? -- sannse (talk) 16:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to make the change, and you haven't explained why. anthony 警告 16:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to make any changes, or prevent any changes being made - I've expressed no opinion on this either way. I just hate pointless edit wars when a better route is to discuss it -- sannse (talk) 16:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, I saw the "S" and got you confused with Silsor. As I've written on the user talk page of Rdsmith, I don't think one should have to provide a reason for an unprotection request, as unprotection is the default state of an article, and lacking a valid reason for protection, a page should be unprotected (to restate that over and over again would just be instruction creep). anthony 警告 16:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, that seems sound reasoning - I agree that the default should be unprotected. On the other hand, it needs to be clear that the reason for protecting no longer applies. Is there a harm in asking for the addition of something like "edit war was a week ago" or "problems sorted on the talk page"? Or alternatively, should we say that the original reason for protection should be stated, to allow the admin who is doing the unprotection to assess whether it still applies. Or (third suggestion) should we say that the default should be "problem no longer applies" and only if there is another reason should it be required to state it. (other suggestions welcome) -- sannse (talk) 16:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess if the page is listed at Wikipedia:Protected page the reason given there could be listed. But in the case at hand, there isn't even a reason given there. Maybe, "for unprotection, if a page is listed at Wikipedia:Protected page list the reason given there, or state that there is no reason given there"? I can't come up with phrasing, but something to that extent would be reasonable. anthony 警告 16:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the information that it wasn't listed is important in itself - it certainly would encourage me to unprotect quickly. It seems to me that the suggestion of a reason simply ensures more information to help in a quick decision. I think we might need "list the reason given on WW:PP and why it no longer applies, or state there was no reason given there", but then that is adding more criteria that a simple "give a reason". Maybe a reminder that unprotected should be the default alongside the request for a reason would help with your concerns? -- sannse (talk) 16:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As long as "not listed on WW:PP", "no reason for protection given at WW:PP", or "reason given at WW:PP does not fall under protection policy" is considered a reason for unprotection, I suppose this is OK. I could add "When considering a reason for unprotection you may want to consider the reason given for protection at Wikipedia:Protected page (or lack thereof)"? It's still feature creep, but I suppose this is something which is going to have to be checked by the admin unprotecting anyway. anthony 警告 17:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say they were valid reasons for unprotection (or, of course, for listing correctly if there is a good reason for protection). I'll re-add Silsor's change and add your sentence. I think the wording may need some adjusting, but a pointer towards the reason given for protection seems sensible to me -- sannse (talk) 18:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your explanation is reasonable so I won't argue against the change any more. anthony 警告 19:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

(moved from main page)

I discussed this with Neutrality (an arbitrator) on IRC, who told me that a separate block could be applied for each infraction. I count 56 clear infractions of the arbcom ruling on those image pages, for a total block time of 56 days according to the arbcom ruling. I welcome other comments from Gzornenplatz, interested users or arbitrators before applying this measure. silsor 01:27, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

What is the infraction? This is one and the same issue covering many pages so the discussion hardly needs to be repeated on each talk page. I have discussed it long ago on Talk:India, where my objection has not been refuted. Simonides is plain lying that his position is consensus-arrived (see for example John Kenney's comment that I am "clearly right" on the issue). (As I said before to the deaf ears of the arbitrators, the whole arbitration ruling is based on this fallacy - I have always discussed every issue, I'm just not repeating the same point on dozens of talk pages when one and the same issue affects many articles, like the issue of the former German names of the Polish cities etc.) Gzornenplatz 01:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what the arbitrator told me, so I'm waiting for further comments from others. silsor 01:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

If you are going by number of reverts after arbitration, Gzornenplatz reverted these pages once again after I requested protection, so instead of 2x28=56 reverts since arbitration, he has made 3x28=84 reverts. -- Simonides 03:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not 2*28, some were reverted 3 times while others were reverted 1 time after arbitration. silsor 03:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

Silsor: thanks for entering the discussion. Let's break this down to keep it simple.

1. Since Gzornenplatz has accused me of "plain lying" may I remind him that it's an ad hominem and yet another infraction?
2. Since he pretends to be completely honest, may I ask why he links to just one comment that backs him up, posted about two weeks after the actual consensus discussion, and ignores all comments directed against his actions?
3. Since he claims there was no consensus, may I ask why his edits have been reverted by User:Poccil (see [1]) and on various other pages, also by User:Hemanshu, User:Kunjan1029 and User:Nichalp?
4. Since he claims that the current consensus map is POV, why doesn't he try to correct it by creating a new map that is NPOV which he should present for consensus, as other editors did? Does he agree
5. That the CIA map is even more incorrect and POV than the current map?
6. If the current map is POV and without consensus, why doesn't he also revert the other image on the article Image:IndiaTest.png which was created well before I was an editor on the article and uses the same colours and similar wording, and which reached consensus earlier?
7. If the image has not reached consensus, why does there seem to be agreement on the current map among several users, and why was he requested not to revert images by User:Kunjan1029 and User:Ashwatham on this page?
8. If he thinks the CIA version is the consensus version, how come there is consensus against it here - again, before I entered the debate on this article?
9. If he has in fact "discussed" the issue, why are there so many requests for him to return to the Talk page and a gleeful comment by User:Ankur that he should "(be) kicked out for good" because he "has no regard for consensus" on the Evidence page?

I think a satisfactory answer to each of these questions would resolve this issue quickly, but I also think the above user will show little inclination to "repeat" himself again and continue to revert and/or be banned. -- Simonides 02:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(If this discussion's going to continue, at least learn to spell consensus, please). Mark¹ 08:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terribly sorry. 3 am is not a recommended time for typography. -- Simonides 08:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Administrators have common sense discretion when it comes to enforcement. Sum up 3 and 28 or 2 and 28 if you want to be sticklers; but such draconian measures are utterly unfair without warning. Gzornenplatz has made more valuable contributions than most admin. I rarely (if ever) see instances where he is in the wrong, at least when it comes to encyclopedic integrity, when he is reverting. Block him for a day with a warning. But give him another chance while he gains a better understanding of the restraints imposed on his editing... If he is blocked for such an unreasonable span of time, I will look into whether or not it's in my discretion as another admin to unblock him because he did not have a fair warning. 172 08:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday I did just this, he is blocked for 24 hours. silsor 13:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Obfuscation

You haven't answered my question: What was my infraction? Are you seriously saying I have to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages if the issue is one and the same? I have explained the matter previously on Talk:India and unless anyone demonstrates how Simonides' version is NOT clearly POV - depicting as it does the international border according to the Indian government view, whereas the world is generally neutral on the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan - I will continue to revert those images to Morwen's original versions which show the de facto line of control and is thus perfectly neutral. Gzornenplatz 03:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the question before. I am not saying you need to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages. You may have set out your point of view in the past, but the issue of blocking is that as far as I can tell you are not attempting to discuss the issue or reach a compromise, or are even willing to do so at all. According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, "If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours." I take your constant and continuing reverting of these articles to be in violation of this. Due to the scale of the reverting I felt you should get a longer time out, but after requesting clarification from the arbitration committee a 24 hour block was decided on. If you attempt to continue this line of conversation with right-or-wrong arguments from the Pakistan-India territory debate I will simply ignore them; I am only interested in the Wikipedia community side of this dispute. silsor 03:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I also cite from the same page, "Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VeryVerily, and Ruy Lopez are required to discuss all reverts on the relavant[sic] talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises." silsor 03:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

"As far as you can tell" is obviously not good enough, then. I am perfectly willing to discuss. The other side isn't, as the point I made long ago has not been refuted. What exactly do you want me to do, short of just letting Simonides have his way? There is no room for a compromise between POV and NPOV. Gzornenplatz 04:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Since you're asking, "what exactly I want you to do" is to abide by the spirit of the arbcom's decision, which is to actively seek a solution to the problem, which you are not. If you did, you wouldn't get any more "not good enough" judgment calls from me. silsor 04:49, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

And how exactly can you "actively seek a solution to a problem" with a blatant POV pusher? Since you don't want to get into the issue at hand, let me give you a simple example. If some article included some calculation to the effect that 2+2=4 and someone kept reverting this to 2+2=6, how exactly would you go about seeking a compromise there? "Well, let's agree on 2+2=5"? The facts here are just as indisputable, whether you want to ignore it or not. So what more can one do than point out the error and revert? Gzornenplatz 05:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can see this is going nowhere, so I'll just give you some advice: if you characterise your disputes as black-and-white and deal with them the same way, and if you treat arbitration as a technical measure that simply restricts how many times in a day you can revert, you will most likely end up banned, not blocked. silsor 05:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can see this is going nowhere, so as long as you refuse to accept that some disputes are indeed black and white, I'll just ask 172, who offered his help, to unblock me next time you block me. Gzornenplatz 06:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gplatz, the way to "actively seek a solution" is by proposing what it is that you want. You claim that the map Simonides is endorsing is POV, but your solution to it seems to be that you will simply replace it by another POV (that of the CIA). That is just crazy. imho (and that of several other editors), the map that Simonides has been endorsing is perfectly NPOV; it clearly highlights the different parts of the region, and mentions which parts are administered by which country.

Also, the de-facto line of control is exactly that - a line of control. It is not a border unless accepted to be one by all concerned countries, in this case India, China and Pakistan. None of them have accepted it to be a border, and it is crazy to insist that it is one. What you are trying to do is to solve someone's "POV" (most people seem to think it is npov, though) by imposing your POV on it. The map that Simonides is trying to push does not even claim that the whole region belongs to India - it shows what regions are controlled by who, and leaves it at that. This is in keeping with your own statement that the world at large is neutral about it. If you still think it is pov, you can always mention exactly what it is that you want, rather than constantly trying to impose a CIA version of it. It looks as if there is abundant consensus that the CIA version is as POV as an Indian version or a Pakistani version or a Chinese version. --ashwatha 22:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is this absurd talk about the CIA? The map simply shows the de facto boundary. What does that have to do with the CIA? I don't care what map the CIA uses at all. The de facto border is not "another POV", it is an objective reality. The version you endorse is clearly POV as it endorses only the Indian claim and goes directly contrary to the Pakistani claim, since the border (the thick line) includes all of Kashmir within India. The colouring does not change this fact. You give the impression that the territory rightly belongs to India, and merely happens to be "presently administered" by Pakistan. That's just as POV as would be doing the opposite and depicting all of Kashmir as within Pakistan's boundaries and labeling the Indian-controlled part as "administered by India". My (that is, Morwen's original) version chooses the obvious NPOV path of doing neither of the two POV options, and just using the de facto line of control, which endorses neither country's claim. Nowhere is it implied that that line is a universally recognized border (if you want, you can label it as "Line of Control"). Gzornenplatz 23:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I (and other editors above) mentioned the CIA was that Morwen's map is identical to the one that is published in the CIA world book. If the CIA had nothing to do with your opinions, I apologize for mentioning it.

However, my objections to what you say above still stand. The primary objection to Morwen's map is that it implies that Wiki endorses the areas under Indian, Chinese and Pakistani control as belonging to those countries respectively. That is an idea that is neither accepted nor endorsed by any of the aforementioned countries.

• India and Pakistan both claim the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir.
• China claims a portion.
• Other countries, if they choose to be neutral, would just say that the whole area is disputed and would not accept or endorse Morwen's map.

As a result, Morwen's map represents an idea that might become accepted sometime in the future, but at the moment is considered invalid by everyone involved. If you feel strongly about the thick black line in the map, a possible solution might be to have that line in a different color so as not to take a stance on to which country that region "rightfully" belongs. If that is acceptable to you, it can be put up at Talk:India for comments from other editors.--ashwatha 03:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's have the line of control in a different colour, then. It's unacceptable to depict one side's claim in a manner that makes it seem like endorsing that side's view. So, in any case, the border between Kashmir and (the rest of) Pakistan must be depicted in the same way as the border between Kashmir and (the rest of) India. Gzornenplatz 07:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

As I have remarked before on more than one Talk page, this is a typical frivolous reply from a time-wasting non-editor. Anyone can see from the relevant images that the current "border" that the above user is uncomfortable with is clearly much thinner than the normal country borders on the same image, and this difference has been applied consistently, so there is absolutely no endorsement of any "side's view" - ie after Gplatz sees that s/he cannot force his POV (and the argument Ashwatha made has been made before on all the Talk pages I linked to, so s/he has no excuse to pretend that s/he didn't see them), s/he looks for another way to extend his revert-warring, this time conceding to a suggestion some one else had to make for him (may I repeat that s/he has never actually attempted to correct and display an image of his/her own that others might comment and agree on, unlike other image editors on the article.) IMO the images should be protected temporarily and/or and the above user or other IP address s/he uses should be blocked. (They were reverted again by an anon IP on 6 Jan.) Also, if the non-editor wants to see the issue resolved, s/he should offer an image of his own for comment instead of trying to force other editors to meet his/her demands. -- Simonides 18:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simonides, I am not trying to force anyone to meet my demands. I am perfectly happy with the image that you are endorsing, which is why I have not offered an alternative image for editors to comment. I said above that I think your map is perfectly npov; I only said that Gplatz can make that suggestion if he is interested, rather than continually reverting without discussion. Jesus, I am on your side here.

Sorry, I was confused about whether you were talking about me or Gplatz. My Apologies.--ashwatha 03:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What the RFPP is not

I want to add some clarification to what RFPP is not. It should be more detailed, in my opinion. I am just not certain what to write. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In view of some recent developments, I have decided to delete my request to protect Rangers F.C. and Danny McGrain. At present, I feel I ought to investigate some issues further. However, I am not convinced that all issues concerning these articles have been resolved, I reserve the right to raise them at some point in the future. PatGallacher 00:14, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Help

I need some advice here. There is a page that deals with an RfC against a user: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KaintheScion. Lately, a person who is involved in the dispute began to remove evidence against the target of the RfC. I had to revert him before to restore the evidence: which keeps on getting blanked out. I just need advice on what to do with the page. The main sticking point: sockpuppetry.

The target of the RfC, KaintheScion, and another user, ElKabong, were determined to be sockpuppets (Evidence:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong). ElKabong has removed the evidence about this sockpuppetry on several occasions ([2], [3], and [4]). In the edit summaries too, he has attacked me (questioning my ethics). I know that pages like this might not allow protection, but I wish to as yall what should happen. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I (User:Ted Wilkes) moved the following from the project page where it had been posted by an anonymous user: (cur) (last) 22:59, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.221.115 - (cur) (last) 22:40, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.216.139

Thats's the limit! Sorry, I'm heterosexual, neither gay nor "part of the gay-bashers". Could it be that Ted Wilkes is the same User:JillandJack who wants to cast aspersions on show business biographer David Bret for his opinion that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been bisexual or gay, an accusation supported by The King's stepmother? Therefore, this user constantly tries to expunge any reference to that claim. For most people in Hollywood it is a fact that Nick Adams was gay. For factual reference or proof, see Talk:Nick Adams. For the whole dispute, see also Talk:David Bret and Talk:Elvis Presley.

Please note that this ANONYMOUS user's only contributions to the Wikipedia are edits to Elvis Presley, David Bret and Nick Adams plus contraventions to Wikipedia official policy with repeated comments placed into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have made a request for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please lock Joseph Stalin and History of the United States (1988-present) already for chrissakes? kthx J. Parker Stone 08:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redating sphinx

I have started the article Redating sphinx in which I'd like to focus on the erosion measurements carried out by Robert M. Schoch on the Sphinx. Can anyone who dislikes an article, delete, merge, or otherwise vandalize it? This is the conclusion I get from Talk:Redating_sphinx --Odysses 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are multiple POV's on the Sphinx date. Your forking off a new article to present a single POV. The title is also POV and BTW there is more than one Sphinx. All of the various dating theories are contained in the main article Great Sphinx under its own sub-section. Is there some reason you are unable to put Schoch's theories there? Is there some reason your not able to have a discussion about this on the talk page rather then calling us vandals and asking for page protection? Stbalbach 20:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

new page layout

In an effort to make it clearer which requests have not been fulfiled or rejected and to reduce the amount on the page I have created an old requests section. When you have actioned or especially if you have rejected a request, please comment what you have done (e.g. "protected", or "no need for protection") and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page, this is so others can see what happened following the request and make further comment on it if they want.

Anyone can remove a request that is in the old section and has had no new comments for three days or longer, but admins can remove items earlier if they want (e.g. if the page gets too big).

If this doesn't work then we can always change it, but I think it will help stop the page get so large. We really shouldn't leave requests unactioned or unrejected for several days/weeks as happens at the moment. Hopefully this will make it clear what has been actioned and what hasn't. Thryduulf 14:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a separate "requests for unprotection" section?

should there? --Revolución (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I created a seperate requests for undeletion section since I don't think that would be a controversial move, it'll make it a lot easier to browse right to undeletion requests when browsing the TOC. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree this makes a lot of sense.--Ewok Slayer 18:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Link on protected templates?

I suggest that Template:Protected and Template:Vprotected should contain something like the following, to avoid the situation where pages are still protected long after the reason for their being protected no longer applies:

If you think that this page should not be protected from editing, add a request for unprotection, with your reasons, to Requests for page protection (and unprotection).

--62.255.64.6 23:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Old requests

Why are we keeping the old requests? They can be seen in the page history and the protection log. I suggest we get rid of them. Andre (talk) 01:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. For things like VfD having past VfDs easily accessible is far more important as it's needed for speedy deletion, but here the fact that it's recorded somewhere should be enough. (WP:CP doesn't archive its entries either.) --fvw* 23:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe they are kept for a couple of days to allow for comments. After that, they are removed. --cesarb 23:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the already done motion; I recently spent a long time moving completed requests to the proper section; I doubt anyone really needs to see them (if they do, they can always look at the history). Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User pages

Surely user pages (As opposed to talk pages) should be protected by defualt, such that only the user, or an admin, can edit them? Is there a better place to propose this?Andy Mabbett 12:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed and it was dismissed. Andre (talk) 17:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Can you post a link to where this has been discussed since I have been wondering about this as well. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 21:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsmen

I have drafted a proposed policy that is intended to address occasional abuses of the page protection process. Please read and comment on Wikipedia:Ombudsmen. --HK 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for page move (un)protection?

I assume this is the correct place for requests for page move protection (and un-). Should there be a separate section for this, too? I've mentioned being a bit more explicit on policy and procedure for this at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, should anyone wish to comment there, too. Alai 05:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Move protection is a type of protection. Just state "from moves only" in the subsection header or in the request. It doesn't seem like that's so inconvenient as to require a new major section. -- Tyler 05:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's necessary, just canvassing opinions. It should, however, certainly be made explicit that this is the correct page for it. Alai 06:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As there were no further comments or counter-indications, I made it explicit that page move protection is within the scope of this page. Alai 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page was vandalsied yesterday[5] by Some guy and nobody noticed! SqueakBox 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandal was someone else, Some guy (a newbie) was trying to fix it but messed up. Apologies to him, SqueakBox 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Newbie? Aww, I thought I was just stupid :P . I accidentally edited an old page version and cleared the changes since then (not a lot, but a few). Sorry everyone. Some guy 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Question for Katefan0, Tony and Dmcdevit

Would there be much use for an archive page of requests instead of just deleting the requests from the page? I think it might be helpful to look up old requests. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, most requests are removed either individually or in small groups, some every day. Fulfilling a request currently requires an edit to this page to note, an edit to the article to add the template, actually protecting it, an edit to WP:PP to note the protection, possibly an edit to an article talk page if there's anything else to note, and possibly an edit to one or more user talk pages to warn about edit warring or incivility or something. An archive would add to that. But, if someone feels strongly about it, we could certainly do it. Did you have any more specific reason in mind? In my experience, most of these requests tend to be ephemeral in nature, and not of interest a few days late after they're actioned. But there may be some compelling reason I can't think of right now? Dmcdevit·t 08:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess they could show how often a page has been protected in the past. But that could probably just as easily -- or maybe more easily -- be determined from looking through the page itself's edit history, no? I'm not opposed really, I just don't know that it's that useful for the work it adds. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought. There's also the possibility of streamlining things a bit. Just thinkin' out loud. :) I don't know. I guess that it's the norm to have archives around these parts and it seems strange to just remove requests. I suppose though...as long as this page stays small, it'll work. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, how about creating a section for New Requests and one for Fulfilled requests? I know it's more work, but it would mean that we wouldn't have to read every request to see if anything new has been added to it and maybe it'd stop people from putting new requests at the bottom instead of the top. Again, just a thought. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note... Random diff from a few months ago: deja vu! Is that what you mean? We used to have a section for actioned requests, but decided to scrap it as unnecessary. :) Dmcdevit·t 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just a thought. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

OK How about this? :)

How about not accepting any request from users/IPs that do not sign their requests? We just had one like that. I think we shouldn't accept them because people need to be held accountable for their requests. Otherwise, we really have no immediate way to see whether they are involved in the argument or what. We shouldn't allow people to "sheild" themselves that way. Yes, we can look up the history and see who it is, but I just feel like we should make people sign their requests. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

If anyone is having difficulties with the current system of protection, or just wants more variety, you may be interested in a new proposal called Semi-protection. If you have time, would you please check that page out and add your comments, sugguestions, and edits? Thanks. -Mysekurity 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to comment on that page too but I think it's a wonderful idea. Those of us who did heavy RC patrol on IRC joke that the Bush page needs it's own room. The vandalism is just constant...I'd say...30 a day? John Kerry is also bad. And others. It would also be good for visible pages like Community Portal and (Talk:Main page for that matter)where we should allow edits but which often fall victim to vandals. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about Talk:Main Page, as that doesn't seem to be as visible (and we should encourage new users to get involved), but I agree about other highly-visible, highly-vandalized articles, mostly with low edit protection. If this goes through, we could save ourselves from looking like fools most of the time, while still keeping in the spirit of the wiki, which would be very helpful.

Yep but if you do RC patrol, you'll see that Talk:Main page gets hit alot, mostly because the Main page is permanently protected. Talk:MP has gotten hit 6-7 times today already. And it would be nice to have a "between" protection. All or nothing isn't appropriate sometimes. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can page protection be used to encourage vandalism?

I probably should not be laughing so much, but recently there was a request made by a number of new users (none of them with accounts) to protect Crystal Palace (chat site) from my editing (not generally, just from my editing) on the basis that I was changing what they had written and trying to make things sound more neutral.

Now, as they have stated, a person who uses the site found the page and decided to improve on the site (a very valid notion) but then tried to assert that my statements were false. I asked him if there was any evidence that they were false, and he admitted that there was none, and indeed that the statements made were what was widely believed to be true, and that nobody disputes that. However, he asserted that they weren't really true. I pointed out that it was not written as fact, and asked him if he could source any evidence.

In response, he got about 10 users from the site to come to the Wikipedia article, and a number of them repeatedly wiped both the page article as well as the talk page. They then went around changing everything, in contradiction to what was stated in the sources, and without citing any of their own sources. A number of the vandalism attempts were reverted by other editors, and these users were warned.

I then received legal threats from one of the users, insisting that I was slandering someone's good name.

From that point in time, they have gone to lengths to completely change facts, and have made a point to change all references to "Virus" in a negative light to instead have the name "Kiwi" as they insist that they were not the same person. So my part was to agree to a compromise by using both names in what I thought was a neutral way of presenting things.

They said a number of rather nasty things about me on the talk pages, and in edit comments, and continued to vandalise other pages.

Then they have recently made a request for page protection to prevent me from editing the article that I created and have been the major contributor to and that they vandalised.

Now, I for one find this to be a bit amusing really. But also a little sad. I had welcomed them to contribute and wrote to many of them to encourage them to contribute in a positive manner, but they just seemed intent on launching personal attacks.

Whilst I am not particularly concerned that anything of consequence will happen (I don't see how the page has any chance of surviving a vote for deletion if they remove their only claim to notoriety), I question if there is ever a time when such things could be manipulated to in fact encourage vandalism. Does it ever happen? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it does happen where people are invited and make a mess of things. And yes vandals have asked for page protection before. That's partially why we're trying to push people to sign their requests so we can see who could be the vandals involved. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

An idea

I'm wondering if we need a general disclaimer on the Bush article. I"m tired of explaining why it's protected so much. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'm more tired of it being protected so much, it doesn't seem to help. Perhaps Semi-protection will help, but I'm skeptical by nature. :-) There is a big hidden notice at the top of the page, I think you should try adding something about it there, if you think it'll help. (Unless you had something else in mind?) Dmcdevit·t 09:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think SP will help. I'm just pleased that that debate has come together so fast. Everyone involved in the discussion (and I mean every person) was for SP. They just had different ideas on how to do it. Anyway, I'll take a look. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection vote. Vote now!

Here is the vote on proposal 2 for semi-protection. Right now we have 20 for support, a few for neutral and 0 for oppose. We're close to submitting it to a community-wide vote. Vote if you would like to do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

i think the page should be protected--Junkbot44 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay!

Semi-protection has gotten the approval of Mr. Wales. All they need to do is to figure out implementation. Once they do, we're going to see an increase in requests on this page, since this page is going to be one way for people to request semi-protection. I think we should split "Requests for page protection" in 2 (one for full and one for semi) once this goes live. Any objections? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh good. Hm, currently requests for move-protection (however rare) are put in the same place. Actually, the way I envision it, the discretion as to whether to use semi-protection or normal protection should be the admin's, and making separate sections kind of curtails that. It involves looking at whether it's really vandalism or a content dispute, and whether it's IP vandalism or not, and maybe some other considerations. I expect if it was split up, we'd be responding to a lot of requests for protection by saying we'll semi-protect it, and maybe even some vice versa. Probably should modify the instructions/intro, but I think we should start off by keeping the same sections as now. (Btw, do we have a time frame for the actual software implementation of this?). Dmcdevit·t 04:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Note was left for Brion to start the implementation process. Who knows how long that'll be. My guess would be a week or less. Jimbo seems pretty enthused about it and it is using something that's already in the software. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection is live!

As of today, it is live. I went ahead and changed some of the wording and also linked to the S-P policy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts on a new template

Any admin who's handled more than a few requests on this page would probably agree that it would be nice to have the protection log for each article easily accessible. I created a new template {{Particle}} to use on this page. It's used like the {{Vandal}} template for users. For example, someone who wants to see Wikipedia (un)protected would use {{Particle|Wikipedia}}, which would expand to Wikipedia (talk · history · watch · protection log).

The drawback to this template is that articles with multiple word titles must use an underscore instead of a space. The {{Vandal}} template has this same limitation. For example, use {{Particle|Hurricane_Katrina}} to expand to Hurricane_Katrina (talk · history · watch · protection log). This could be explained in the directions at the top of the page. Overall, I think the advantages of this template outweight the need to use underscores. Thoughts? Carbonite | Talk 19:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this is overkill. With the new protection controls that were implemented a few days ago, we can see the protection log when we go to protect/unprotect. Not sure we need a template which does the same thing. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Main Page Articles

I think that featured articles should be semi-protected for the duration of the day it is featured because of an increasing amount of vandalism on such pages. Often, that's the first page that vandals or newbies see, and they are likely to put random edits and tests on that page. Maybe a new template addressing newbies' concern of "Why can't I edit this page?", "Why's it protected?", etc. would help, and encourage them to edit other pages or create an account and wait a few days. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We actually altered the SP policy so it was clear on that point. We can *not* be pre-emptive with semi protection. It's not "lessor" than protection as it blocks out all anons and a good chunk of new users. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Raul654 and Woohookitty. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Whole-hearted agreement. It is in fact more for anon editing that we leave featured articles unprotected, and not for the registered users. This would be self-defeating. Dmcdevit·t 07:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Semi-protection is reactive, not pro-active. Articles on the Main Page can be semi-protected if they're being heavily vandalized, but not because they might be heavily vandalized. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

They make us seem more friendly, and aren't as high-targeted as the usual suspects. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)