Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: old discussion without a header

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Wording change

message: 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)
thread_title:  What the RFPP is not 

message: 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%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong). ElKabong has removed the evidence about this sockpuppetry on several occasions (, , and ). 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Help 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redating sphinx 

message: 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)
thread_title:  new page layout 

message: should there? --Revolución (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should there be a separate "requests for unprotection" section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link on protected templates? 

message: 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<SMALL>*</SMALL> 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old requests 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ombudsmen

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requests for page move (un)protection? 

message: This page was vandalsied yesterday by Some guy and nobody noticed! SqueakBox 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough. Just a thought. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Katefan0, Tony and Dmcdevit

message: 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)
thread_title: OK How about this? :)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can page protection be used to encourage vandalism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An idea 

message: 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)
thread_title: Semi-protection vote. Vote now!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Yay!

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi protection is live! 

message: 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  to use on this page. It's used like the  template for users. For example, someone who wants to see Wikipedia (un)protected would use , which would expand to . 
The drawback to this template is that articles with multiple word titles must use an underscore instead of a space. The  template has this same limitation. For example, use  to expand to . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thoughts on a new template 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Strongly concur with Raul654 and Woohookitty. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection of Main Page Articles