Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

falun gong page -- go unprotected

without free discourse there is no free thought, without which there is no progress towards truth.

Wikipedia:High-risk templates

As discussed on that page (and on WP:AN earlier), it is generally a good idea to fully protect templates that are 1) frequently used, and 2) not in need of frequent edits. This is preemptive; we haven't had a serious template vandal yet, but it would be an easy target for them.

Earlier cases have indicated that if e.g. a template contains an offensive image, many users don't know where it actually comes from and fail in their attempts to fix; and as an added problem, any edit to an oft-used template causes moderate to severe server strain, and has been known to halt the entire wiki for several seconds in extreme cases. Any changes to oft-used templates should obviously be discussed first, so protecting them won't actually be harmful to the wiki as preemptively protecting articles might be. See also WP:AUM; the above applies to meta-templates as well or more.

The most logical place for requesting (un)protection of such templates would of course be WP:RPP. I hope it's not a problem to add those requests (which should be few) to this page? Radiant_>|< 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

An idea

I think we need to add a comment that says that if people use the wrong format or put the request in the wrong place, their request might be rejected out of hand. I'm moving 3-4 requests *every day* because people are putting requests in the wrong place. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

{{article}} versus {{la}}

After I made the templates {{ln}}, {{la}}, {{lnt}} and {{lat}}. Perhaps {{article}} shoudl be changed to {{la}} etc...? →AzaToth 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

guideline?

Is there a policy or guideline that is followed when deciding whether an article qualifies for semi-protection? I'm not trying to be troublesome. It's just something that would be nice to know. It would help me (and others) decide when to ask for protection, or when to just put up with the problem. The case I'm dealing with now is George Washington Carver. The statistics over the past 136 days: 236 total edits, 160 of which were either instances of vandalism (101 instances from 45 unique IPs) or reversions (59) to deal with same. That leaves 76 constructive edits, a vast majority of which are very minor, ie, typos, puctuation, grammar, etc. (which, of course, is to be expected). So perhaps a dozen or so substantial contributions have been made over the past 4+ months. Other than a handful of minor additions, and some polishing and tweeking, there is not a lot more that can be probably be done with this article. In the meantime, there is at least a 10 to 1 ratio of negative vs. positive contribution. Should this ratio not be a consideration in deciding when to protect? Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, semi-protection is covered by WP:SPP and full protection is covered by WP:PPol. However, an off the cuff answer is if the vandalism is within the ability for regular editors and admins to deal with then most likely the page shouldn't be protected (at least in my interpretation). Some cases where I have applied semiprotection were where the vandals were using a bunch of related ips, so it was easier to just sp the article than try and block them all or range block them. In regards to Mr Carver, it seems that you are suggesting that since the useful edits tend to be small polishing of content...and the vandalism is rampant...that perhaps the article should be switched to full protection, and that is definitely against the protection policy. Hope that helps. --Syrthiss 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Percentage of vandal edits is not considered; it's the quantity and frequency that matters most. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. it's 2 basic rules really. Heavy and recent. So it can't be 3-4 edits for months on end or vandalism that happened 3-4 days ago. The guidelines are not in stone, but generally, 8+ vandal edits every day for several days in a row or a sudden massive attack from several IPs are usually the 2 major qualifiers for semi protection. And yep, % of edits has nothing to do with it. As I've stated before, if we went by that, we'd be using SP on hundreds of articles. Thus, anon editing would be severely restricted and that's against the spirit of SP and Wikipedia. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That pretty much clears it up. If I didn't miss it somewhere, the powers that be might consider publishing those guidelines somewhere, even if they are very loose. Then concerned editors, or at least the ones who bother to look, will have a general idea as to when to request protection. That would save a little time on both ends of the deal. If it is already written somewhere that I have missed, then I apologize. I appreciate your time and insight. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We admins have alot of "unpublished conventions". Why they aren't listed, I dunno. Another one is for blocking. for vandals, we almost always start with 24 hours. It's not written anywhere but it's what we do. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism in relation to other concepts

(moved from RfPP)

Well this has been edited today...with a revert war. Which article are we talking about then?Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The last edit before yours was on the 19th which was Woohookitty fixing a broken redirect. Before that, it was edited on the 18th. I don't know quite where you are coming from, here. -Splashtalk 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The current page was a pointer redirect to a page that was then deleted. Then one admin went in and restored the article from months and months ago. There is a discussion about all of this, but it is at Talk:Fascism_and_ideology#Nazism_and_socialism because that is where much of the page was moved weeks ago. One user ignores the consensus, refuses to take part in the discussion at Talk:Fascism_and_ideology and insists on restoring months old text on Nazism in relation to other concepts. The restoration of this page to an older version was a mistake. It should be deleted or made a redirect to Nazism. The other page was protected after one user noticed it for deletion and tried to change the redirect.--Cberlet 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
(after edit confict)The editing in the last 3 days is less that during the "main" edit war...and I can tell it is starting again. Protection is for the current (unless vandalized/editorialized) version, not the "right" version. Lets see if we can get some consensus on the redirect. If it was a redirect before...maybe people will agree to redirect it to Nazism as you suggest.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has not been edited in the last 3 days. It has been protected! It isn't starting again, because it is protected and it cannot start again! -Splashtalk 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All, check a little closer. The page was already protected. The request was to replace the text with a redirect. That's not appropriate for the reasons I described. You re-protected a protected page...with a comment about a revert by an admin who was fixing a redirect to a non-existent target. -Splashtalk 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was refering to this[1]/ The admin was not fixing the redirect...more like restoring the old article. And the page was protected...yes...the tag was gone so didn't even notice (yes I know there is a log).Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That still makes no sense. That diff is from the 15th of February, before protection and not by an admin.
This is an absurd Catch 22. The text on Nazism and Socialism was moved weeks ago after a full discussion. A notice was placed on the page stating that it made sense to divide up the rest of the text and place it on other pages, then delete the page. Multiple editors took part in a discussion that spanned several pages. The text on Nazism and Socialism was moved to Talk:Fascism_and_ideology#Nazism_and_socialism where it has been discussed and edited. One user created a fork by restoring the months old text on Nazism and Socialism to the page Nazism in relation to other concepts, despite the fact that it was in the process of being cut up into other pages. Notice the very top of the page Nazism in relation to other concepts. It states clearly that the page discusses Nazism and Religion and Nazism and Race. That's because the section on Nazism and Socialism was moved weeks ago. That's the section unilaterialy rstored--as 95% duplicate text to text that already is on Talk:Fascism_and_ideology#Nazism_and_socialism. There is a discussion. It is at Talk:Fascism_and_ideology#Nazism_and_socialism, not at Nazism in relation to other concepts. --Cberlet 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This restoration is on the 18th [2]. I never said it was by an admin...but that the admin...Woohookitty was restoring...not reditecting the article. The previous, Sam Spade, admin was doing the same think ealier. Surely if I leave it protected there will not be an edit war. I can try unprotecting and hoping that Sam Spade does not restore it again, or I can wait until they agree. I suppose I can leave it protected and make a redirect...a protected edit as requested...but using protection to control the page version like that is not desirable. If a discussion if ongoing here[3]...then it would better encourage discussion if the relavent page was locked...as it has been...and people would not keep comming in and changing it. Please point to the exact archives where any agreement on what to do here is...as it is not currently on the Fascism_and_ideology talk page.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

<---------The text on Nazism and Socialism from Nazism in relation to other concepts was moved to Fascism and ideology on January 11, 2006, See: [4]. The notice about merging and repackaging started here: Talk:Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Merge_and_repackage.3F.

Sam Spade has tried inserting the same discussion on Nazism and Socialism on multiple pages. This material was removed by several editors from several pages. His edits have repeatedly been resisted by multiple editors on the Fascism page. The page Fascism and ideology was set up to allow a full discusssion of the issue and also the issue of Fascism and Corporatism, which is also a contentious matter. This has gone on for months. But this particluar matter is about the fact that the text about Nazism and Socialism on the page recently restored to the page Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_socialism is virtually identical to the existing text at Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism.2C_Nazism.2C_socialism.2C_collectivism.2C_and_corporatism where Sam Spade refuses to join the discusssion. There is already a page with the text. And there is already a discusion on that page. Look at the top of the pageNazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts, it states the following:

Explain to me how protecting the out of date page with the arbitrary re-insertion of the section on Nazism as Socialism (already on the other page) makes any sense. See the diff here[5]

The discussion at the now deleted Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation) was based on the redirect from Nazism in relation to other concepts pointing there. The discussion was that it was not really a proper disambuguation page. I agreed to speedy deletion of that page when the sentiment was that a simple redirect to a page that had the Nazism Template would suffice, and meet Wiki guidelines. I did not expect for an admin to go back and restore the page I had redirected to the page Sam Spade had put the duplicate text on Nazism and Socialism. I asked for page protection in the first place to force a discussion at Fascism and ideology.

If you are going to restore the text on the page Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts then at least restore the page that existed before Sam Spade plopped the old Nazism and Socialism text back while not bothering to edit the lead that says it is elsewhere. This is the page here: [6], that should be restored if you insist on not redirecting the page to Nazism [7]

I am happy for a discussion, I have invited Sam Spade to take part in the discussion. I just want to have the discussion on the appropriate page.--Cberlet 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am just not conviced that unprotect is safe yet nor that a protected edit is justified. This is basically a typical talk page dispute...not something that can be settled at RfPP.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I usually agree with Splash but in this case, I think it should be protected for a few days. It's obvious that there is still a dispute and we really don't want a redirect/restore war. Those are almost as bad as a move war. Keep it protected for a few days. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my request. I have created a discussion and vote based on a template at Talk:Fascism and ideology. I will happily follow the outcome. I hope that administrators are willing to step in if one user refuses to abide by the outcome and continues to insert blocks of nearly identical text on multiple pages.--Cberlet 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting old requests?

Should declined requests for protection and ensuing discussions be removed from this project page? NEMT 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrators usually clean out old requests as the mood strikes them. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I usually give them a day after they have been acted on, though it varies. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Who added the Current requests for a protected version/edit section? I really really dislike it. We just don't do stuff like that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I remember there being an old request for protected edit section that disappeared last year. Some of the protection request are actually for protected edits, and are not always made clear. This is has been done before, un-officially when 1-2 users/IP add POV edits to an article against consensus repeatedly. This is usually done before RfCs/RfArs are not yet finished. A good example would be the Ray Nagin and Ted Kennedy articles. This cases don't come up often, and it can tread a fine line in certain cases, though having an extra subsection for clarify does seem like it would hurt much. I would try re-wording it if you don't like it, worst case, you can remove it I suppose...Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well. I have no problem with the idea of it. The problem is that it's going to misused. Plus we already have the editprotected template. We'll see. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The protected edit template category seems to be unused for now...they should be used together with RfPP.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about that since I fulfilled a couple of requests yesterday. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I see it. Yes, there are a few on the talk pages, I'll add the template reference to the section maybe. The template seems to be for someone just wanting to add on to a protected page, whereas the subsection also covers issues with more drama involved. I'll have to reword again. Perhaps a list can be made under it with a breif explanation why, like the protected page backlog, but it would be smaller and more managable.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. The problem I have too is that it opens us up to ALOT of extra grief. What happens if someone claims there is a consensus...how do define consensus? Our usual way? If so, we'll have angry people in the minority. It just opens us up to alot of grief. I just really don't like it and I don't see the usefulness. More harm than good for us and for the people involved. We're going to burn people out (like me) if we increase the load on the few of us who patrol this page every day. I just don't like it. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sad you think this way. You can always - like you did - look at the evidence provided and decide there is not enaugh consensus and leave it. In more controversial matters it would be nice to have evidence and links brought together which leaving a template on the talkpage would not provide, as the disscussions continues to grow. Anyway after Voice of All changed the heading of that section I also used the template as suggested. Agathoclea 15:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go find something else to do on the site. Have fun! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't go! I think that the new section, as it is worded, is good at telling people exactly what to do in order to get an effective response. The section suggest 3 options: add the protected-edit tab (just making it clear to newbies), request dispute tags (NPOV, ect) be added--nothing big yet---and finally, it offers protection so as to avoid daily/weekley edit wars against consensus and special cases. Because these are special cases, we won't get many of them. That section only has two articles, where as the others get far more request. I don't think that the load will be much worse. I am looking for a rigourous consensus, which is why no request have been excepted yet. Do remember the RfC and Arbcom suggestions, which give the minority further say, and are required for a permanent solution. These stops annoying daily/yearly disputes like that on Ted Kennedy, Ray Nagin, and possible the Anarchism and Nazism articles if consensus if reached as in the first two examples. There is a point where disputes/bitterness/flaring up of revert wars just get ridiculous, and protection can answer the problem in some cases, or at worst, protection pending the resuly of an arbcom case can. If you still don't like the section, you can always ignore those request and let some one else handle them.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm gone. No interest anymore. 4 months of this every day was too much anyway. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple sections

I'm not of the opinion that there is any benefit to having multiple sections to either requestors or admins. It's very obvious from the request what is being requested and it's classic instruction creep to erect new rules where the old one were working ok. Apart from that, the actual request is often not granted in the manner sought so the sections would probably cause upset "...but I never asked for...so you can't do it". Then, there are the sections that would basically be nearly always empty, just adding clutter to a low-traffic page. It's easier to nuke the dealt-with requests 12-24 hours after they're dealt with. -Splashtalk 23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is simplier without the sections. I suppose "move" protect would just sit there...It is not always clear what type of protection people want though, so I added a small note for that. I guess that should do it: clear and simple.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Move protection

Is there a move-only protection? The Microsoft article has been moved around to Mickeysoft and Microshit recently. The article is obviously correctly named and needs some protection from disruption, but I don't see move-only as an option to request. SchmuckyTheCat 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to request for unprotection of the " betty chan' page

there are no reasons to delete the Biography of betty chan as i have listed all the proof that she exists and that a bio about her should be written! —This unsigned comment was added by Snob (talk • contribs) .

This is the wrong place to bring this; go to Deletion Review. --Golbez 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection for Yoda

Apperantly, the page is going a mass-amount of "Dagobyte" vandalizm. an IP editor is randomly replacing random words and sections with the word Dagobyte. And it won't stop. Now, pretty much the only edits to that page are the Dagobtye vandal.

Its already semi-protected though this probably should have gone on the project page itself. Jedi6-(need help?) 23:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Approaches to the removal of semiprotection

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy#Removal of semiprotection about how improvements can be made in the area of unprotection decisions around high-profile, heavily vandalised articles - please visit that page and contribute if you have a view on this SP-KP 09:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove Realbasic Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REALbasic

The so called neutral administrators and authors of this article:

1. Have removed information from the discussion page; no not moved, but removed, as I have pdf copies of previous entered text, which no longer appears.

2. none of the information in the article is verfied. Instead they continue to use the deceptive technique of only linking to general computer terms found on Wiki to give the appearance that the article has some verfification; however, none of the information in the article is verfied by independent outside links. It consists of opionion and personal knowledge and original research.

3. When given direct links to other pages, or references to specific page number son books, which direct disprove information contained within articles that they have linked to they continue to refuse to remove the links which contain false information. They were provided a link directly from the publisher of the product which disputed the information in links they provide and yet they refuse to do anything.

4. The make statement sin the article and then link to articles which directly dispute what they said in article, but they continue to do nothing, because they do not bother to read the articles they link to - links to articles are only added to add a false sense of verification.

5. They use product reviews from unknown sources, which solely contain OPION and often contain completely false information; from unqualified sources (anybody can buy a .com address and put up a web page, but that does not make them an qualified expert).

6. They continue to link to reviews on which there is advertising for the product that is being reveiwed. This is clear conflict of interest as the person writing the reveiw gets money from the ads selling the product, thus they are willing to say good things about the product contrary to the facts.

7. They continue to use th publisher of the product as a linked reference source. This is a clear conflict of interest as from own and other's experience the publisher of the product has enganged in questionable/immoral business practices. This is like having the fox in charge of the hen house.

8. they continue to include multiple operating screen shots of the product when wiki says only to use screenshots form operating system.

9. Wiki is suppose to be an encyclopedia, yet they only permit information about the current version of product so as to sell a commercial product on wiki. They do not permit an historical information about the product, yet its 10 years old.

10. They link to articles which contain pro and con sections, yet theydo not permit such on their own page; they only permit positive comments when in fact the product has major defects, some of which have existed for 10 years.

I frankly tired of these administrator and authors using Wiki to sell a commerical product amd want this article article removed - this has t be one of the worse articles on wiki as it DOES NOT PROVIDE VERIFICATION LINKS FOR ANYTHING!

And in a similar fashion you have not verified your claims by providing difflinks or evidence of what you're saying. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a complete lie - links were provided in the article and on the discussion page and the adiministrators point blank said on the dicussion page that they do not care if the information contained in a article they link is false! Is there anyone of Wiki that tells the truth, apparently not! Frankly Wiki need sot have its assed sued into nonexistance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.170 (talk • contribs) .

To see a full log of personal attacks, incivility and legal threats, see Talk:REALbasic/Archive2. I tried a range block but an innocent user was affected *sigh* well, anyways, that's the jist of my actions. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 00:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User page of RexNL protected too long

The user page of RexNL, an administrator, is protected. A quick check of the page's history got me the feeling that though it has been vandalised in the past, the last vandalism was way back in January. This page has been protected for just too along and does not satisfy the any of the conditions for page protection (refer Wikipedia's Protection Policy) and hence I feel should be un protected. 202.162.56.29 23:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What the?!

Who protected THIS page and why? 68.39.174.238 00:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sept 11

I'm just wondering why that unprotection request was deleted but the ones before and after were not. The edit summary said "cleanup". Was it too messy? SkeenaR 04:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

An admin refused to semiprotect Nuclear weapon in spite of it being an FA that is vandalized daily by IP users. The edit history contains mostly rvv's. There has not been a useful contribution from an IP editor in eons. Semiprotection would prevent vandalism but permit legitimate users to continue to improve the article. But obviously some moron's right to deface a high quality Wikipedia article with random obscenities is more important than the time of several editors who, instead of making useful contributions to Wikipedia, have to spend all their time reverting vandalism. Wonderful. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Being sarcastic and rude is hardly the way to gain sympathy for your position. If you think the wrong decision was made, take it up with the admin who told you "No" on his/her talk page. Just be polite about it and ask for a more detailed expalantion as to why they made the decision they did. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have. I've heard that 10-20 vandal attacks per day is the unwritten rule people go by for protection which is more than the article gets. And it's not sarcasm, this is what really happens. Thanks. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

After about a 2 1/2 month absence, I'm back monitoring this page. May God have mercy on my soul. ;-) Just pitching in. I don't plan on going full time on it like I once did. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Completed / Denied Section

This page can get pretty bloated, maybe we should implement sections for completed or denied requests where they can be kept for 24 hours, such as the system used at WP:RFCU. Comments? Prodego talk 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. Well. It sounds good on paper. But...and I'm someone who monitored this page for 4 months straight at one point...it's hard enough to get admins just to act on these requests much less keep an archive as well. Look at just a few days ago when we had 16 unacted upon requests, some as old as 4 days. I just don't think it's workable. So again. Wonderful on paper but I just don't think it'd work. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course, having said all of that, I see that VoA has a bot trying to get this to work. If it can work, great. But if admins have to do this manually, it just isn't going to fly. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see Voice of All working on something over there. It would be nice to keep this archived, but I definitely see and agree with your point. I don't, however, see much harm in archiving them with a bot, i.e. User:Crypticbot or User:Werdnabot, every 5-7 days. No need for admins to move them to the archive when done--that's just pointless bureaucracy--but if a bot could manage, I think it would be worth doing. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If it could be done by a bot, great. I just don't think it's worth having an admin tied up full time on just archiving. E Asterion u talking to me? 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
VoABot handles this.Voice-of-AllTalk 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Notification tag about Unprotect request

I propose that when a request has been submitted that a page shall be unprotected, this should automatically be reflected on the protected page so that involved and interested parties can follow the process. __meco 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My unprotection methodology

Generally, I will post a message in the talk page to call for comments about unprotection for any fully-protected page that has been protected for about two weeks or longer, with no discussion on the talk page about the issues leading to protection for the last week. If there is no response to the issue in 48 hours, or if there already are comments on the page complaining about the protection (which the admins have not taken action on), I will request unprotection on this page at this time. I will do this periodically to ensure that protected pages are either moving towards resolution or at least discussion, and that protected pages are not just languishing in the ether. Calwatch 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has questioned my motives regarding this matter, which under my policy on my talk page I am obliged to bring up in here so that all editors are aware of it. The quoted conversation follows.
Several articles you have mentioned unprotection in (all in this very day) were touched by the same stalker/vandal. I would like to inquire as to by what method you happened onto all of these in the same time frame (i.e. whether there is a list you are scanning) and what your potential interests are regarding content in those articles. Please reply here. Thanks. 151.205.40.71 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It's called Category:Protected pages, and I have done this before. I will remind you of WP:AGF and my edit logs and summaries should speak for themselves. Further discussion will be conducted in Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_page_protection per my disclaimer above. Calwatch 04:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Why resort to being terse? I simply asked a question. Surely you can understand one's caution on this matter. 151.205.40.71 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I am naturally going to be very suspicious of a user who has never made any edits prior to today asking questions that require a high degree of knowledge about how wikipedia works. If you wish to ask questions and you are an admin or even a registered user, please feel free to do so with your username. As noted above, the discussion will be moved to the Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_page_protection page, where I started a blurb about my criteria. Calwatch 04:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Haris Vlavianos

I would like to ask that my page is semi-protected because it has been vandalized repeatedly in the past.

(Question: if it is semi-protected does that mean that not even I can add truthful information to my page?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.205.234.168 (talk • contribs) .

Boy, where to begin? First of all, Haris Vlavianos is not "your" page. It belongs to the entire encyclopedia. Second, I didn't see any obvious vandalism in a brief look at the history, and even if there was, it's been at a rate of a few edits per month, at most. That's not enough to warrant protection of any sort; if you see vandalism, just revert it. Third, semi-protection prohibits non-logged-in users from editing a page. That includes you. If you want to edit a semi-protected article, you'll need to register and use a username. Powers 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and fourth... semi-protection requests go on the project page, not here on the talk page. Powers 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian View/Satanism

33 degree mason albert pike (the kkk guy) seemed quite interested in saying that lucifer is the god of the masons. On July 14, 1889, he issued formal written instruction to the "23" Supreme Councils of the world. Here he gives us a very good look at the inner order of Masonry. As follows: "That which we say to the crowd is 'we worship God', but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors, General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees, the Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luceferian doctrine."

and aleister crowley (33 degree mason & one of the most influential satanists known) seemed to think that lucifer is apollos, thor, and the 'Sun Father'.. In Magick-Book 4 * Liber Aba, Crowley calls Satan the Sun-Father: “...Satan, the Old Serpent, in the Abyss, the Lake of Fire and Sulphur, is the Sun-Father, the vibration of Life, Lord of Infinite Space that flames with his consuming Energy.” which interests me; because in masonry symbols there is 1) the swastika (which was used HEAVILY before WWII) and basically represents the 'sungod', and then 2) the mason symbol with the G in it (the up and down V's; called chevrons) http://www.lightspeedfineart.com/Photos/SG1/Davis4thumb.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs)

George Bush

Someone deleted my request for unprotection without any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob000555 (talk • contribs)

Messianic Judaism

someone deleted MY request for unprotection without any reason given, as well. Rivka 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

feck

isn't this the last page in the world that you'd want to leave sprotected? it makes it impossible for anons to use--152.163.96.167 05:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of control vandalism, please protect/sprotect--152.163.101.12 23:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul Castro

What to do? I asked for semi protection for Raul Castro. Where an anon with a roving IP address is repeatedly insisting on the sentence "rumored to be bisexual" citing an obviously unreliable source. Whatsmore, the anon is becoming increasingly uncivil in their edit summaries to those who remove the claim saying "stop vandalizing the article and removing my posts or I will start vandalizing yours!". Due to the roving IP addresses, it is not easy to address the user directly, plus the threat by that user to start vandalising my posts places me in a more difficult position. The page protection was summarily denied. Where does that leave the page - which is a living persons biography and should be treated as such - or me as I've had to remove this 4 times now?--Zleitzen 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

This policy seems to have gotten unnecessarily bureaucratic if it really takes days of additional debates just to convince an admin to remove a protection tag once it deserves to be done.--Nectar 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting continuous protection

The Carlos Mencia entry has temporarily been protected because of recent vandalism. The history of this entry shows it has been a target of vandalism as long as it has existed. I warn that it probably will continue to be vandalised while the controversal celebrity is popular.

Description of Vandalisms Joe Rogan released a statement on his website claiming Carlos Mencia is half german, not half mexican, which is hearsay at best. Since then Joe Rogan fans and Carlos Mencia not-fans have been trying to slip that information into the Wiki. To date all reliable sources that remark on his ethnicity and heritage, including Carlos Mencia's own official Biography available on his website www.carlosmencia.com, directly disprove the accusations.

Internet rumors should not be presented as fact with Wikipedia's name behind it.

On a side note, not all of the vandalism has been removed, see discussion page for more details. --Didonato 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

{editprotected}

Request someone add this to the "Requests for Unprotection":

This and below have been protected for 2-4 months. 68.39.174.238 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This and above have been protected for 2-4 months. 68.39.174.238 10:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the {editprotected}. Ask the protecting admin: User:Jayjg. And pelase get an account, there are lots of good reasons (including being able to edit those articles)--Commander Keane 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Backwardsly, A: that old news, B: I'll make a more obvious request:

The below text, added to "Requests for Unprotection":

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been protected for about 10 days, which is about/a little over the length of previous protections. Also, given the nature of this page, protection can cause obnoxious problems (Like having to request requests for unprotection). 68.39.174.238 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I don't see any reason why this page should ever be protected for more than a few hours at a time in the first place. - ulayiti (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Functionality

I asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, but no one seems to be monitoring or answering over there....

Is it technically possible to protect an article against just a range of IP Addresses, such as 89.50.*.*, rather than using a "full semi-protect"? --Brian G 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Weyrich

I would ask for page protection for the Paul Weyrich webpage. It has become a site for constant vandalism. When I try editing out the editorializing aimed at defaming him, it constantly gets reverted. It has become a tiresome edit war. As a friend of Mr. Weyrich's, I don't mind if criticisms are represented on the page, but when I try making the words used more NPOV and fair they consistently get reverted to a more venomous version. --68.45.161.241 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mulatto

I'm not sure how long the page for mulattos has been protected, but can we resolve this issue so we can edit. Or can we at least just attach the list of notable mulattos to the page so we can get rid of the list that is on the actual page, only taking up room?Americanbeauty925 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Restricting access to editing

I have been watching the large amount of vandalisms, reverts and spurious editing, many by unregistered users. Wikiipedia is an open source project, but is now very mature.

I believe it is high time to block any non-registered users from any form of editing. Virtually all other forums that I have used during the last 10 years require registration before adding new content.

I was very surprised when I registered that I was not requred to provide any identification. All other forums require as a minimum providing full name, and a verifiable e-mail address. They generally also require a mailing address. Adding this requirement to registration would perhaps not stop all spurious registrations with numerous ID's (to get around 3R rules and bias discussions.) But it would cetainly slow them down.

Syrenab 17:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Unregistered users are our largest source of new editors. Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing. Powers T 00:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered users is wonderful, but if you are interested in editing, one should register, I did and the vast majority of editors have - it takes less than 2 minutes. Without requiring registeration before editing, how are you ever going to control the continued vandalism?

Syrenab 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's two issues here: 1) unregistered users perform a lot of the vandalism that we catch; 2) most unregistered edits are not vandalism (surveys say anywhere from 55-80% last I saw). Does the difference make sense? -- nae'blis 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tfd on Template:Protectbecause

re: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_29#.5B.5BTemplate:Protectbecause.5D.5D

This is a link to a proposal that this template be kept and revised per it's talk page Proposed revised template link, as a useful back channel link to finding the proper pages, especially this one 'Here'.

Such a navigation by an 'editor in need' may (likey! It did me <g>) take place via for example

A) A desire to protect (or edit or by seeing) an already protected page, giving a' place to start' for the current need of the moment.
B) and so she 'Navigates to' said protected page known to the user because of (A).
C) and so, 'Finds the Category:Protected' because of such status tagging on B's page.
D) allowing him to now 'Find the template {{Protectbecause}}, and assume because of it's 'suggestive user friendly name' that it was indeed a lead to finding the proper procedure and policy for such protection.
E) and so follow'... the link to the template and thence to 'this main page' for which this is the talk.
F) generating feelings of satisfaction and success vice frustration and emitted swear words whilst facing the damnable task of figuring out how to find the information sought... listed here!
Excerpts from the above WP:Tfd link
Template:Protectbecause (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some user's way of asking for page protection without visiting WP:RFPP and without specifying a reason for the request. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SNIP, SNIP. Xpost my recommendation per above reasoning.
  • Keep and Modify per proposed modification at Template Talk:Protectbecause, which lists the process for all and sundry as a reference. Such can easily be included into process.
As proposed it looks like this (subst'd)
User:Fabartus believes this page has to be protected because This article is repeatedly being vandalised by IP 123.456.789.012.
  1. An lengthier rationale has been (or is about to be) added to the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 2 under the section Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 2#Requesting_Page_Protection.
  2. The same or similar rationale is (or is about to be) added to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.
  3. All requests have been duly signed by me with my signature: FrankB 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{{category|[[Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}

Boy! I do hope that's not a good IP! <g>

Note the auto-category Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests I nowiki blocked around before substing. I presume that's a patroled cat, and if this pops up it may alert someone that work is pending.

The noninclude parts of the proposed template page have some additional usage annotations helpful to the newer users, and who have stumbled onto this template via a category search or whatnot. As such it helps disseminate the 'proper procedures and places to go'.

Oh! The reason I think this should be kept is it's a good reference to how the process works and serves as a notice to others that the protection request is outstanding. Someone else may well stumble on the Category:Protection templates, as I did, or via a protected page (as I did) or remember seeing it's cat since it has a nice simple easy to remember name. It's name as template is useful to provide a editor friendly starting point however they find the thing.

IMHO, Such back door links to find what one is looking for should not only be held opened, but made sure of for the benefit of the poor sod volunteering precious discretionary time to any wikipedia.

Too much

There are way too many articles which crop up here for unprotection having been left protected without question for months after the editwar that started it. Page protection is an unfortunate necessity, and the more it is used the greater its blemish on the "everyone can edit" ideal. We need a more effective way of clearing up old forgotten protections than for someone who knows the process to stumble across them.

The ideal would be a special page listing protected pages in date order. Maybe this is to technically burdenous (comments please from a tech admin) in which case I suggest adding dates to protection templates like the cleanup templates do, so we can view monthly categories. Anyone with me on this? BigBlueFish 08:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A page like that is already available, at WP:PP. —Mets501 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad! BigBlueFish 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Category?

This page should be categorized and I have done this but my edit was removed by VoABot. Can anyone rectify this? --Siva1979Talk to me 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrative rigmarole

What is the purpose of having these image templates, and moving fulfilled requests between sections? All that needs to be done is to protect or unprotect a page, and then the entry can be removed. —Centrx→talk • 05:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving them clears out the clutter for admins looking at the page, while maintaining the replies for those making requests. The icons finalize the result and help the bot to act as completion flags.Voice-of-All 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For articles where the protection or unprotection request is granted, the requestor knows by looking at the respective article that the request was granted, so they may just be removed? Also, what is the bot doing with this page? —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The bot moves finished requests down to the fulfilled/denied section so they don't clutter up the active ones.Voice-of-All 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I increase my RFP participation?

I regularly find myself posting requests for semi-protection here due to excessive anonymous vandalism (my criteria for "excessive" is 10 vandal edits in 24 hours). I notice that RFP is often backlogged, which means that by the time a request is responded to, lots of time would have been wasted dealing with anonymous vandals.

Before semi-protecting an article, admins have to determine whether there is sufficient vandalism to warrant semi-protection. Since I regularly post requests here, I am considering increasing my participation by commenting on requests, usually by posting the number of vandal edits to the article in the past 24 hours. This will help admins in their judgement, so they can respond to requests faster, thus reducing backlog.

I am not an admin, and the day I become one will be the day Microsoft goes bankrupt. Although my intention in increasing my RFP participation is not to become "admin material", I believe that in the unlikely event that I run an RFA, my participation in RFP would boost my chances. I currently help revert anonymous vandalism, and I consider semi-protection as a method of preventing vandalism and reducing the time wasted on dealing with it.

Based on all the information I have presented here, and any other information applicable, do you think I should continue with my plans to increase RFP participation by commenting on requests? Please explain your answer, so it will be useful feedback to me.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it would help much. If an admins have the time to look at this page, one admin alone can do a lot. Adding some stats will likely not change that much, as it doesn't really speed up the process that much.Voice-of-All 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be two issues:
  • We need more admins to promptly respond to requests to prevent backlog. One admin can do a lot, but it takes too long for that one admin to show up.
  • If I were an admin, I'd help respond to requests. Since I'm not an admin, commenting on requests is the next best thing I can do.
My comments will not be limited to the number of vandal edits in the past 24 hours. I will try to make my comments as useful as possible, and include additional information where appropriate (e.g. "the user who posted this request is involved in the edit war").
I hope to help make RFP run more smoothly, as semi-protection is a good way of dealing with anonymous vandals. Greater participation in RFP would help me cultivate good judgement skills, which would help me grow as an editor. Finally, it would boost my chances if I ever run an RFA.
Do you think participating in RFP will help me achieve the aims outlined above? Or are there other ways to increase my participation in RFP (without being an admin, of course)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been an admin for nearly a week now, and I've made it my duty to check this page every time I log on. Unfortunately, it often builds up in the night and I'm left with a lot to do. More admins would help probably. In response to J.L.W.S. The Special One, you could decline any requests which did not need protection, or add Semi-protected or whatever to pages which had been seen to. --Alex (Talk) 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This[8] might help. I use it. Voice-of-All 23:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection System Breakdown - the Halloween article

What I had to go through to get the Halloween article semi-protected yesterday was ridiculous; and points to a breakdown in the page protection system. When you have admins spouting incorrect information as their reason for not protecting the article (that articles linked from the main page cannot be semi-protected, when only the Featured Article is specifically restricted from said protection, unless it’s being attacked), while vandals are being reverted at a rate of seven times a minute, something is terribly wrong. And then when the page is finally protected, another admin un-protects it, saying that Halloween is over. Maybe in his universe. Halloween is like a world holiday for vandals, second only to April Fool’s Day. Are we surprised that they attacked the Halloween article on Halloween? I'm not one for preemptive protection, but after the first, oh, fifty reverts, I would think that it would be academic. Maybe I'm wrong. -- Weirdoactor 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello sorry to bother, could an admin please add the Turkish language ex (:tr) for the Halloween article ? The full name is "tr:Cadılar Bayramı" [this is the link] . Thanks ! --Nerval 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

editprotect Confederation of the Rhine

request unprotection to add brief on Confederation of the Rhine and German states during Napoleonic era. The period spans nearly 2 decades and was a formitive period in German history, in particular the consolidation of numerous kingdoms and principalities - Napoleonic Wars had a lasting impact on Germany, ushering in the rise of nationalism.

Editprotected Confederation of the Rhine

request unprotection to add brief on Confederation of the Rhine and German states during Napoleonic era. The period spans nearly 2 decades and was a formitive period in German history, in particular the consolidation of numerous kingdoms and principalities - Napoleonic Wars had a lasting impact on Germany, ushering in the rise of nationalism.

Request the edit on the article's talk page, not here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive_2&oldid=1150989083"