Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 3

message: Strangely, a template with absolutely no links from here isn't well known to all admins. -Amarkov blahedits 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a little note under "Instructions". It's not particularly visible but I tried to avoid cluttering up the page more than it already is. -- Steel 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have done that much, but I'm not sure how sensitive the bot is to that kind of thing. "DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT" warnings tend to make me paranoid. It's probably not needed for it to be prominent, admins aren't going to jump in without reading the page. -Amarkov blahedits 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should something be put in telling admins about {{tl|RFPP}}? 

message: just wanted to say a huge thank you for semi-protecting the RFKpage - it has had a huge impact and has drastically reduced vandalism in a way I hadn't imagined. Very very very much obliged.Iamlondon 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a Thank You!

message: "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. Please release this page for free editing.
Wikipedian #2473
Page should be free for all to review and edit otherwise we miss out on great writers and excellent Wikipedia material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Brown Snr (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 January 2007  (UTC)
:Um, first step on asking for an article being unprotected is to say which article it is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE LIFT PROTCTION

message: Yo. Ace here. Big of an issue at . The page, a redirect, is sort of being fought over. I was wondering, first off, if full protection could be gained. I know that's usually restricted for temporary basises and disputes, but this is something of an exception. So, if I submitted some kind of survey and gain consensus, would protection be in order to prevent further edits, however well intentioned they may be? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise the level of disruption that and related pages suffer. I have been bold and protected it against moves. Any move request should go to WP:RQM first. Asteriontalk 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem seems to be with REDIRECT not with actual page move. I suggest you discuss this in the talk page beforehand. Asteriontalk 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a stupid idea. Heh. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect protection? 

message: Someone needs to at least semi-protect this article, as many, many anon vandals keep blanking the page, deleting sections, and replacing with such things as 'This is a good movie'. Thank you. -- Tyson Moore 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the inevitable result of having an article on the main page (and quite a common suggestion), but consensus has been (just about) not to protect it unless there's very heavy and consistent vandalism from multiple accounts, preventing blocking). Even then, it will only be semi-protected for a limited amount of time. See WP:NOPRO for the rationale and more details. Trebor 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Halloween (film)]]

message: I cannot change my monobook. Why is this? is it some sort of global monobook.js protecting?  → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone's monobook is fully protected against other users, for the obvious reasons.  You should be able to edit your own however.  You were logged in when you tried?  Regards, Ben Aveling 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is [[User:poorleno/monobook.js|My Monobook.js]] Protected (full) 

message: I suggest a paragraph explaining hanging itself. Here is a sample.
Hanging, contrary to popular belief, does not asphyxiate the victim by means of the noose hanging. Hanging was designed to break the victims neck. This is the reason for the knot of the noose being placed on the side of the neck.
Also, the word "coil" in the first or second sentence should be changed to "noose", or "rope". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discuss changes on the talk page of the article, not here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer Definition 

message: User:VoABot seems to be down...?  So that the page doesn't get super-full, is there any particular duration we wait before moving entries to Fufilled/Denied, and then removing them from that category?  -- Natalya 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I'm gonna give it a trim anyway. --Robdurbar 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just plain remove them. I did yesterday, removing the ones older than 12 hours (I think). If someone needs to find something, then they can always looks through the history. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, its up now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot down? 

message: Is there some kind of archive for the WP:RFP page itself?  (I know that this talk page is archived.)--Aervanath 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure there isn't. You'll have to dig through the history manually. Carson 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fun fun fun! No big deal, I guess.  I'm just lazy. :) --Aervanath 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFP]] Archive? 

message: The 'edit' tags on the page are all displaced (i.e. to edit a section, you have to click on the tag for the section below it). How did that happen??? --Robdurbar 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks okay to me... perhaps a WP:BUNCH problem? Kusma (討論) 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems fine now... was probably just temporary, or my browser, or something. --Robdurbar 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page changes all the time. If between the time you load the page and you click an "edit" button, a new request might have been added. Since MW handles it by putting &editsection=# , if the number of the section becomes different, you're editing a different section. And with VoABot clearing and whatnot. For example, you want to answer the second request, and someone makes a new request at the top before you click edit. Now, you're still editing section 2 (or whatever), but it appears to be the one above because it got displaced by a new request. </techinalmumblejumbo> -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Fooked

message: My recent experience with the issue of protection on the Ann Coulter article gave me what I believe is a productive idea for this page. Nobody seemed to know why it was protected in the first place, and I'm sure there was probably a good reason. As a subject of discussion, Ms. Coulter can spark emotional debates. I noticed similar comments regarding World War 2, and others as I scrolled down. If this page had a separate section listing the pages currently under protection and why they are that way. This might help reduce confusion, and curb suspicions of anyone thinking a particular page being protected is part of a "Wikipedia Conspiracy".
Unfortunately I have not had time to make an effort to see how many protected pages there are on Wikipedia. If the number of protected articles is more than section should have, perhaps a sub-page could be created. Anynobody 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PP (warning big) or Special:ProtectedPages (when it gets up). Reasons are usually "vandalism",  "banned user", "edit warring", "BLP",  or something along those lines. Just ask the protecting admin if you need a clarification (seen in history, or the logs. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logs for each page will also provide the reason(s) for any protection of the page (though many readers probably won't know about them). -- Natalya 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for clarity: Protected Section

message: I'm not shopping for a second opinion, but I'd like a clearer explanation as to why a page that's made no progress over the last 50 edits within the last few hours isn't semiprotected. Many contributions are factually incorrect (5 nominations, 2 wins, but IPs and at least one registered account keeps saying 5 wins. Xiner (talk, email) 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I looked deeper into the problem, and it's my cache. My news page has been wrong/obsolete all this time. Sorry. Xiner (talk, email) 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't [[Dixie Chicks]] be semi-protected? 

message: I think we should restrict unprotection requests to reasons other than time limits of being semi-protected. Any objections?? Georgia guy 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection. Being protected too long is a reason for unprotection, especially if it's been over 3 weeks. I just did a drive through WP:PP the other day and probably unprotected over 20 pages that had been protected for over a month. If people make requests here, it makes it even easier. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we can add expiry dates when protecting pages hopefully admins will start to use this feature more and more and this won't be much of a problem. VegaDark 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to use the expiry feature as much as I can, but for some pages it's still best to leave them protected for an undefined amount of time. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection problem 

message: A few days ago I requested semi-protection for the page Joe Trohman.  The article is tagged as semi-protected, yet IPs are vandalising at will.  -- Dan D. Ric 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK guess it's protected now. - Dan D. Ric 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged but not protected

message: Perhaps I am missing something, but the James Blunt page was sprotected about 10 days ago.  Today, an anon edited the page, and in fact changed some statistical information - the kind of vandalism that is nearly impossible to catch.  These were the only two edits of this anon, according to the contribution list.  How did this happen?  Have I missed something and the page got unprotected without anything in the history, or the tag being removed?  Thanks.  Risker 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did an Anon get to edit sprotected page [[James Blunt]]? 

message: Last night(Yesterday) I rejected a request for Avatar: The Last Airbender to be protected as it was the FA on the main page, this diff but I see that it was relisted and protected then the protection was removed. Then todays article has also been listed but this time decline and the policy linked again. I was just thinking that maybe this policy should have a statement and be linked to from the page header. This would remind admins of the policy and also advise editors that such a policy exists, just a simple sentence like.
:Todays Featured article doesn't normally received protection please read the complete policy before requesting.  Gnangarra 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todays featured Article 

message: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"><script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jnothman/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>Discussion is happening right now on requests from users about "indefinate userpage protection" at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Indefinate Sprotection on Userpages. Comments would be appreciated. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To: Protectors 

message: My request for that to be semi-protected completely disappeared from the page... can anyone look into it for me? Thanks. CityPride 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't really enough activity to justify protection for Hong Kong International School. – Steel 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hong Kong International School

message: Why is there a delay in actioning the request to unprotect this article, it's been sitting in the request queue for over a day now while later requests have been promptly actioned. Martintg 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends if theres no discussion or if theres no comprise etc it can stall requests. Lakers 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945  

message: Why is this template considered a high-risk template?  It is not listed as one.  It is linked less than 80 times.  Is it now going to be frozen forever because one editor wants it to be frozen forever?  Thanks in advance for explaining some more (and for perhaps unprotecting?).Ferrylodge 04:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the template on Template:Abortion, it's currently under dispute (ie, edit war). I don't know any of the background into the matter, so that's all I can give you. I do see a lot of constant reverts near the time of protection though. You should ask the protecting admin, User:Cbrown1023 for more details if you need them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion Template 

message: Something else that would be useful in the arsenal of protection tools is a way, at the time of protection or semi-protection, to choose to automatically schedule a corresponding unprotect.  This occurs to me because Rabbit was recently left protected for over two weeks after a spat of vandalism.  This interfered with my ability to contribute a couple of really minor changes. 
Unlike certain hot topics (politics, religion, etc.) I think its fair to say that targeting the rabbit article for vandalism was probably an arbitrary choice, so having a time-out for vandal-prompted protection could mean one less thing for an admin to do.  I don't have an opinion about how long the period of time should be between protection and unprotection.  One alternative is to allow the admin to choose the duration of the protection.  A simpler approach, probably implementable via a Wikipedia:Bot, would be for the duration to be fixed.
Just a suggestion...67.100.122.199 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This feature was recently implemented.  I'm not sure how often it is used though.  The protection templates still need to be removed manually though.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It all depends on which admin you get. I use expired protection whenever I can, others will not use expiry dates. There's nothing mandatory about using it. It makes it much easier in terms of making sure that we aren't protecting pages for 2 months though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear it is already implemented.  Thanks for the replies. 68.167.254.136 (fka ) 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for option to automaticaly schedule unprotection after vandalism 

message: It would be very instructive if that section were split into two. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to speak to User:Voice of All, since he runs the bot that archives this page. Or doesn't archive, depending on whether it's off sick. – Steel 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fulfilled/denied requests

message: This protection is a slap on the face of truth and justice.  This protection helps an article with several unconfirmed and seriously biased references, an article that promotes nothing but ethnic hatred and destruction, and an article that needs serious editing with verifiable sources. Lift the protection and let the truth be known. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.193.216.191 (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please lift protection on "Tabriz" 

message: Lately I've been seeing more and more requests for protection carrying a suggestion for the expiry time/date. Any particular reason for this new trend?--Húsönd 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was implemented in Twinkle, and people started picking up on it. I personally think it's stupid; most of these times are entirely arbitrary, and can only encourage gaming the system. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Twinkle is doing this automatically... Not that I'd like it, maybe I'm just too tired to figure out how to turn it off... *looks after it* --Fischer.sebastian 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The js code suggests that setting Duration to infinite prevents this behavior. --Fischer.sebastian 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Well, I have three thoughts about that: first, it let's people give, indirectly, a "priority" to the issue. A request that says "indefinite full protection" is more likely to catch an administrator's attention than a "semi protect" message. Second, it may help people to see if their judgment matches the one by the admin. And third, it may help those giving opinions in RfAs: if someone has requested 100 protections, and most of the time it did not match the admin's opinion, it can be considered that the user is too hasty to request protection. However, if out of 100 protections only one or two have been disagreed, it can be considered that the user is fairly reliable in terms of what an administrator must think about different situations. -- ReyBrujo 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it really matters what the recommendation is. We are free to take it or leave it. We can decide to protect for however long we feel is necessary. Although maybe it will get more admins to use the expiring protection feature. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I ignore the expiry times people suggest, per pretty much the reasons Amarkov gives. On a side note, we've been getting many more dumb protection requests since that feature was added to Twinkle. As much as I love some of the Twinkle scripts (User:AzaToth/twinklespeedy.js and User:AzaToth/salt.js, for example), twinkleprotect wasn't one of AzaToth's better ideas. – Steel 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Steel, the time requests are just something one can (and I tend to) ignore, but there is a risk that having some of these functions available on Twinkle increases the number of frivolous requests. WP:AIV suffers similarly from the fact that username violations are so easily reported via Twinkle. WjBscribe 23:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. I was worried that twinkleprotect would create a kind of revert-warn-requestprotection type culture, but thankfully it hasn't been that bad. – Steel 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering... 

message: I made a new request for page protection. 
any way to get something added on here? i wanted to add rules for 91 cup beer pong? thanks
Current requests for protection
Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection in this section. Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
[edit] IYER (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The link to IYER is not pointing to the main article but to some other page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IYER&action=edit
instead of iyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyer
BalanceRestored 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protect Iyer.  However, this will get declined. Real96 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new protection request.

message: I asked for a semi-protect in an attempt to stop the controversy section of the Swansea University Students' Union page being deleted. I had not asked for it for the other parts I was just fed up of pulling this one part (which is cited) and it keeps being deleted for no reason. I cannot see any given reason why. All I see form the other side making is the continual attacks on my grammar and threats of libel. Can some please help me see where the person deleting the controversy section says why he is deleting that section? If it is Grammar (Is this a valid reason for delete?) can some on give me some pointers of what wrong with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lanfiex (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Err apparently there are valid points? 

message: Hello. I want to request CIA for protection but I couldn't add it to the list because my message was prevented by Spam protection filter while it doesn't contain any spam words. Can anyone explain this to me, please? This is my message:
========
semi-protect. Though this page wasn't heavily vandalised but it still badly needs protection. Numerous IPs have added virulently corrupted information and sometimes editors don't remove it completely. Thus, it's very difficult to find out where the real vandalism is. AW 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michaelas10 semi-protected the page until 12 May 2007. Sr13 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I couldn't add the page 

message: semi-protect. Though this page wasn't heavily vandalised but it still badly needs protection. Numerous IPs have added virulently corrupted information and sometimes editors don't remove it completely. Thus, it's very difficult to find out where the real vandalism is. AW 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michaelas10 semi-protected the page until 12 May 2007. Sr13 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{la|Central Intelligence Agency}}

message: I was wondering how to add new sections? as in 91 cup pong. Thanks
:Read the 'Instructions' section at the top of the page. Oh, and sign your posts like ~~~~ <--that, please. – Rianaऋ 19:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOW TO ADD 

message: I'm trying to start a discussion about having more explicit criteria for semi-protection.  I'm hoping there is a consensus of opinion and current practice that can be described as a guideline.  I'd appreciate input.  Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for semi protection due to vandalism 

message: Hi all. Is VoABot dead? The contrib log looks awfully suspicious & there's not been activity in days. It's not blocked, either - Alison ☺ 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess we clear it manually then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meow. Someone should poke me ;) Voice-of-All 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting it back up. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VoABot?? 

message: The page Dixie High School (Utah) is vandalized by anonymous IP addresses.  Unfortunately, most of the good edits are also by anonymous IP addresses.  This article is lightly watched and vandalism can stay up for hours or sometimes days.  Is there a master "vandalism watch list" for articles that should not be semi-protected but are heavily vandalized?  davidwr 09f9(talk) 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to semi-protection? 

message: Seems a bit much to me, since most vandalism stretches over the course of a few days. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that it becomes less useful after only 4 days and that most people have a boredom threshold of about the same, I don't think we need freeze articles for a month at a time. It's a bit like blocks: start small, and increase as we go with the aim being to do the least amount of an unpleasant thing that we can get away with. Just because an editor asks for a month of protection for an article they're working on doesn't mean that's the only option available to a protecting admin. Splash - tk 23:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article are you talking about, then we can look at the decision. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I see you changed it to 2 weeks (but a month actually would have been good too). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am talking in the abstract, and am not interested in a particular article (although yes, I did shorten one of the heavier-handed protections). There were a series of 1 month protections apparently blindly following the request when a few days of vandalism does not to me seem enough justification for weeks of protection for the reasons in my original post. I'd like to see if we can think about some more proportionate measure to apply in general. Splash - tk 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just did one just now. I tend to look at the history, though, and try to reduce it to a short a time as possible; 1 or 2 weeks. Sometimes, it's obvious (esp. with persistent socks) that it's not likely to let up without a month block. Oh, and needless to say, the TW-inspired "recommended" durations should be ignored :) - Alison ☺ 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, nobody pays any attention to these rather arbitrary suggested expiry times. – Steel 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when its something like "3 days". There's just no point in that. If you think it only needs 3 days, watch it yourself. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A month of semiprotection?! 

message: It is unacceptable for the featured article to spend 25% of its time vandalised, as is currently happening. By refusing to semi-protect you are strengthening the feeling of those us who feel that the previous "policy" was deeply flawed, and deepening the division between us. You ought to meet us at least half-way and acknowledge that the current level of vandalism is unacceptable. DrKiernan 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this comment directed towards? Who are "you" and "us"? - Alison ☺ 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Users vs admins, I would assume. – Steel 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Broad categories of opinion are detailed here: consensus. DrKiernan 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:NOPRO is the place to complain about this. kthxbai. – Steel 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We will follow whatever consensus tells us to, and right now the majority says no protection for featured article. If that ever changes, we will change with it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you force me to return to this page. The majority is not in favour of no protection. Quite the opposite. That is my point. The majority favors semi-protection, and we are instead following a course of action which was imposed by a single (albeit superlative — I use that word with heavy emphasis) editor who has himself admitted that he never envisioned it as policy. (See Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection/Archive1#Policy) Since its first inception the "policy" has been met with dismay and disagreement. We are only now easing our way to what is actually a consensus, with the help of study and evidenced argument. I do not wish to enter into a lengthy argument here, as it is the wrong place to do so, but you should be aware that the guideline has been, and is being, redrafted and you should act accordingly. DrKiernan 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, we don't have to act until consensus says otherwise. Until you return to us with a guideline/policy that says Todays Featured article may be semiprotected, we don't have to. I couldof sworn this use to be a perennial proposal. And you also need to realize that we don't have to do anything. If we all refuse to protect, then you can't do anything about it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection: "Administrators may semi-protect the page until the end of the day or for shorter periods as a response to heavy vandalism." Do you think that over 50 vandal edits in one day is heavy vandalism or not? DrKiernan 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the main page featured article? Not really. – Steel 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Number 1, that's a hyperbole, and secondly, not really for the main page (it gets a lot, but that is to be expected while it's featured on the front page of Wikipedia. It would also be a contradiction to go from "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "this page is protected against unregistered and new users"). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The average no. of vandal edits to the MPFA is 82 per day. DrKiernan 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether WP:MPFAP is a guideline or not, you'll probably have a hard time trying to get admins to enforce it. I certainly refuse to. --Deskana (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Deskana for finding the root of this problem. A few disgruntled editors on the WP:NOPRO talk page are not going to change long-established common practice by shouting "but the guideline says!" over and over. – Steel 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we just leaned that on WT:PROTECT too. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article (again) 

message: I added a line to the text at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading that a user should ask the protecting admin about unprotecting before making a request here. Does that sound sensible to everyone? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. (Though I wonder how many people will notice it...) – Steel 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bolded the line in hopes that some people will notice. I also added that this is not the place to dispute protection (after several less-than-a-day-protected requests today). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Is it possible to place a "full protection" on a user page and yet that protection does not affect the sub-pages and the talk pages connected to the userpage? Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats how it works. A protection only affects that page (unless cascading is enabled, which is rare). But we don't usually protect userpages for no reason. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question... 

message: I have never done this before and I hope I did it correctly so that it may be addressed. There is a problem with editors on "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" article where two editors refuse to allow a section they believe is not notable even though it has been edited in every way to conform to wiki standards by a couple of editors. They believe that "majority Rules" is a consensus even though it is basicaly two to two at this time, and that is not what a consensus is. --Amadscientist 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just kidding, it is actually already protected. --Trumpetband WIHTW? 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First time request for full protection 

message: Too many unregistered people posting incorrect facts, labelling it vaperware, etc, etc. It needs to stop. JAF1970 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spore (video game) - semi-protect it please

message: I'm curious about something. We have protection to prevent non-accounts from editing. I 'think' we have protection to prevent 'new' accounts from editing. What about protection to prevent anyone with less than x=(500?) mainspace edits from editing?
It seems that something along this line would protect 'established' or 'targeted' articles from being edited by anyone other than a serious editor. And if someone 'new' really wanted to edit one of those articles, they only need to 'go forth and edit' in mainspace for a week or so (probably not something a vandal would be willing to do, simply to be caught in his first vandalism and have to start over). Peace.Lsi john 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The different types of protection are outlined on WP:PROT. – Steel 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing persistent vandals who setup socks accounts to vandalize, like this one. A higher semi-protected mode, which required 1-month or 500 edits, would make it a bit more bothersome for persistent vandals. Peace.Lsi john 00:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly discourage this idea. We semi-protect too many pages as it is, a higher level of protection will be very damaging the image of the Wiki. That means someone would have to wait a month before being able to edit these protected pages. Idea strongly discouraged.--Trumpetband WIHTW? 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit too "cabal-ly" for me. While regualar users can get 500 edits in a month, that takes a long time for those who don't edit almost every day. If you want a wider audience to weigh in though, I would suggest WP:VPR, you would need very wide support for this though as it would be a policy and a software change. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it is necessary, but I think it is an ok idea.  It could, for example, help tone down some fights while not totally blocking an article. It gives some measure of regard for people with experience.  Its ok with me if it is needed. --Blue Tie 02:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal. Improving semi-protection by increasing the "established user" guidelines to perhaps 30 edits in addition to the conventional 4 day waiting period or perhaps a 6 day waiting period before one has the ability to edit semi-protected articles has been proposed. It got a fair consensus. It just means improving semi-protection policy to prevent banned users from creating sleeper puppets and waiting for the 4 days to expire and instead must make 30 edits prior to being automatically confirmed and having the ability to edit semi-protected articles. With this implemented anon editors who think an article should be fixed could just request the change on the articles talk page and an established editor can make the changes within a few seconds without a problem. This would actually make wikipedia LESS restrictive. With this implemented we can decrease the number of fully protected articles thus making wikipedia as a whole less restrictive. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "With this implemented anon editors who think an article should be fixed could just request the change on the articles talk page (...)"This happens already. – Steel 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection Levels