This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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
V
V 19:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)] --
V
V 10:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think articles known to be targeted by biased edits should be nominated for Wikipedia:Articles only to be edited by logged in users. Get-back-world-respect 23:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to resurrect this suggestion - amongst my watch list I've got
Oliver Cromwell (great man. pity about the head!) and
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg - there are others (usually similar slightly controversial political figures). These articles are still usefully evolving (though not, I agree, 'hotly debated', except in C17 Putney) and should not tbe locked-out. But in the last two months there have been increasingly-frequent minor vandalisms (eg espionage changed to sexaul intercourse) _all_ done by un-logged-in users...
I agree with this proposal, in fact I came here looking for exactly this. I came here after looking at the history page of
George W. Bush. I counted only 3 legitimate edits out of about 80-90 since being unprotected. Everything else was vandalism and reverts. All of the vandalism was by anon users. It really needs to be {{aprotected}}, with "a" meaning anon. --
pile0nades
talk |
contribs
14:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who feels stressed out from reverting all that vandalism, feel free to take a
Wikibreak. I can heartily recommend it. :-)
Otherwise, please, people, try to put things in perspective. Even if 99% of all edits to an article were vandalism by anons, it still wouldn't warrant making the 1% of genuine anon edits in all possibility extinct by demanding that people go sign up for an account first. To anyone who tries to drag out the old "but registration is so easy and takes only a few seconds" argument: that's a few seconds too many. I know how often I stop by a website that requires me to jump through just this one little hoop before I can fully enjoy it—and I always click them away with nary a second thought, because the web is too big and my day is too short to waste time on accommodating people who think they're entitled to some sort of commitment. If putting up hurdles will do anything, it's breed more people who are determined to really cause trouble—and we have more than enough of those already.
There is no such thing as "too much vandalism", there's only vandalism and more vandalism. Protection from anons? When would you apply that? When would you lift it? How about "anything with lots of edits" and "never" as likely answers? It's all in your head. We've got enough people covering it. Always have, always will. Yes, the histories of some articles look like warzones, Wikipedia is not the tidy place we'd like it to be, and despite our best efforts, readers get confronted with vandalized articles sometimes! Boo hoo. That's what you get for running a wiki encyclopedia, which as we all know is a crazy idea that cannot work...
JRM ·
Talk
19:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is there still no discussion here? -- sannse (talk) 16:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(moved from main page)
Administrators have common sense discretion when it comes to enforcement. Sum up 3 and 28 or 2 and 28 if you want to be sticklers; but such draconian measures are utterly unfair without warning. Gzornenplatz has made more valuable contributions than most admin. I rarely (if ever) see instances where he is in the wrong, at least when it comes to encyclopedic integrity, when he is reverting. Block him for a day with a warning. But give him another chance while he gains a better understanding of the restraints imposed on his editing... If he is blocked for such an unreasonable span of time, I will look into whether or not it's in my discretion as another admin to unblock him because he did not have a fair warning. 172 08:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question: What was my infraction? Are you seriously saying I have to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages if the issue is one and the same? I have explained the matter previously on Talk:India and unless anyone demonstrates how Simonides' version is NOT clearly POV - depicting as it does the international border according to the Indian government view, whereas the world is generally neutral on the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan - I will continue to revert those images to Morwen's original versions which show the de facto line of control and is thus perfectly neutral. Gzornenplatz 03:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused about whether you were talking about me or Gplatz. My Apologies.-- ashwatha 03:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I want to add some clarification to what RFPP is not. It should be more detailed, in my opinion. I am just not certain what to write. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In view of some recent developments, I have decided to delete my request to protect Rangers F.C. and Danny McGrain. At present, I feel I ought to investigate some issues further. However, I am not convinced that all issues concerning these articles have been resolved, I reserve the right to raise them at some point in the future. PatGallacher 00:14, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
I need some advice here. There is a page that deals with an RfC against a user: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KaintheScion. Lately, a person who is involved in the dispute began to remove evidence against the target of the RfC. I had to revert him before to restore the evidence: which keeps on getting blanked out. I just need advice on what to do with the page. The main sticking point: sockpuppetry.
The target of the RfC, KaintheScion, and another user, ElKabong, were determined to be sockpuppets (Evidence: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong). ElKabong has removed the evidence about this sockpuppetry on several occasions ( [2], [3], and [4]). In the edit summaries too, he has attacked me (questioning my ethics). I know that pages like this might not allow protection, but I wish to as yall what should happen. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I (
User:Ted Wilkes) moved the following from the project page where it had been posted by an anonymous user: (cur) (last) 22:59, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.221.115 -
(cur) (last) 22:40, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.216.139
Please note that this ANONYMOUS user's only contributions to the Wikipedia are edits to Elvis Presley, David Bret and Nick Adams plus contraventions to Wikipedia official policy with repeated comments placed into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have made a request for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please lock Joseph Stalin and History of the United States (1988-present) already for chrissakes? kthx J. Parker Stone 08:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
In an effort to make it clearer which requests have not been fulfiled or rejected and to reduce the amount on the page I have created an old requests section. When you have actioned or especially if you have rejected a request, please comment what you have done (e.g. "protected", or "no need for protection") and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page, this is so others can see what happened following the request and make further comment on it if they want.
Anyone can remove a request that is in the old section and has had no new comments for three days or longer, but admins can remove items earlier if they want (e.g. if the page gets too big).
If this doesn't work then we can always change it, but I think it will help stop the page get so large. We really shouldn't leave requests unactioned or unrejected for several days/weeks as happens at the moment. Hopefully this will make it clear what has been actioned and what hasn't. Thryduulf 14:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
should there? -- Revolución ( talk) 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree this makes a lot of sense.-- Ewok Slayer 18:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
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:
-- 62.255.64.6 23:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
Surely user pages (As opposed to talk pages) should be protected by defualt, such that only the user, or an admin, can edit them? Is there a better place to propose this? Andy Mabbett 12:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
As there were no further comments or counter-indications, I made it explicit that page move protection is within the scope of this page. Alai 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
This page was vandalsied yesterday [5] by Some guy and nobody noticed! SqueakBox 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The vandal was someone else, Some guy (a newbie) was trying to fix it but messed up. Apologies to him, SqueakBox 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
If anyone is having difficulties with the current system of protection, or just wants more variety, you may be interested in a new proposal called Semi-protection. If you have time, would you please check that page out and add your comments, sugguestions, and edits? Thanks. - Mys e ku rity 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Here is the vote on proposal 2 for semi-protection. Right now we have 20 for support, a few for neutral and 0 for oppose. We're close to submitting it to a community-wide vote. Vote if you would like to do. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
i think the page should be protected-- Junkbot44 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Any admin who's handled more than a few requests on this page would probably agree that it would be nice to have the protection log for each article easily accessible. I created a new template {{Particle}} to use on this page. It's used like the {{Vandal}} template for users. For example, someone who wants to see Wikipedia (un)protected would use {{Particle|Wikipedia}}, which would expand to Wikipedia ( talk · history · watch · protection log).
The drawback to this template is that articles with multiple word titles must use an underscore instead of a space. The {{Vandal}} template has this same limitation. For example, use {{Particle|Hurricane_Katrina}} to expand to Hurricane_Katrina ( talk · history · watch · protection log). This could be explained in the directions at the top of the page. Overall, I think the advantages of this template outweight the need to use underscores. Thoughts? Carbonite | Talk 19:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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
V
V 19:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)] --
V
V 10:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think articles known to be targeted by biased edits should be nominated for Wikipedia:Articles only to be edited by logged in users. Get-back-world-respect 23:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to resurrect this suggestion - amongst my watch list I've got
Oliver Cromwell (great man. pity about the head!) and
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg - there are others (usually similar slightly controversial political figures). These articles are still usefully evolving (though not, I agree, 'hotly debated', except in C17 Putney) and should not tbe locked-out. But in the last two months there have been increasingly-frequent minor vandalisms (eg espionage changed to sexaul intercourse) _all_ done by un-logged-in users...
I agree with this proposal, in fact I came here looking for exactly this. I came here after looking at the history page of
George W. Bush. I counted only 3 legitimate edits out of about 80-90 since being unprotected. Everything else was vandalism and reverts. All of the vandalism was by anon users. It really needs to be {{aprotected}}, with "a" meaning anon. --
pile0nades
talk |
contribs
14:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who feels stressed out from reverting all that vandalism, feel free to take a
Wikibreak. I can heartily recommend it. :-)
Otherwise, please, people, try to put things in perspective. Even if 99% of all edits to an article were vandalism by anons, it still wouldn't warrant making the 1% of genuine anon edits in all possibility extinct by demanding that people go sign up for an account first. To anyone who tries to drag out the old "but registration is so easy and takes only a few seconds" argument: that's a few seconds too many. I know how often I stop by a website that requires me to jump through just this one little hoop before I can fully enjoy it—and I always click them away with nary a second thought, because the web is too big and my day is too short to waste time on accommodating people who think they're entitled to some sort of commitment. If putting up hurdles will do anything, it's breed more people who are determined to really cause trouble—and we have more than enough of those already.
There is no such thing as "too much vandalism", there's only vandalism and more vandalism. Protection from anons? When would you apply that? When would you lift it? How about "anything with lots of edits" and "never" as likely answers? It's all in your head. We've got enough people covering it. Always have, always will. Yes, the histories of some articles look like warzones, Wikipedia is not the tidy place we'd like it to be, and despite our best efforts, readers get confronted with vandalized articles sometimes! Boo hoo. That's what you get for running a wiki encyclopedia, which as we all know is a crazy idea that cannot work...
JRM ·
Talk
19:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is there still no discussion here? -- sannse (talk) 16:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(moved from main page)
Administrators have common sense discretion when it comes to enforcement. Sum up 3 and 28 or 2 and 28 if you want to be sticklers; but such draconian measures are utterly unfair without warning. Gzornenplatz has made more valuable contributions than most admin. I rarely (if ever) see instances where he is in the wrong, at least when it comes to encyclopedic integrity, when he is reverting. Block him for a day with a warning. But give him another chance while he gains a better understanding of the restraints imposed on his editing... If he is blocked for such an unreasonable span of time, I will look into whether or not it's in my discretion as another admin to unblock him because he did not have a fair warning. 172 08:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question: What was my infraction? Are you seriously saying I have to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages if the issue is one and the same? I have explained the matter previously on Talk:India and unless anyone demonstrates how Simonides' version is NOT clearly POV - depicting as it does the international border according to the Indian government view, whereas the world is generally neutral on the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan - I will continue to revert those images to Morwen's original versions which show the de facto line of control and is thus perfectly neutral. Gzornenplatz 03:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused about whether you were talking about me or Gplatz. My Apologies.-- ashwatha 03:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I want to add some clarification to what RFPP is not. It should be more detailed, in my opinion. I am just not certain what to write. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In view of some recent developments, I have decided to delete my request to protect Rangers F.C. and Danny McGrain. At present, I feel I ought to investigate some issues further. However, I am not convinced that all issues concerning these articles have been resolved, I reserve the right to raise them at some point in the future. PatGallacher 00:14, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
I need some advice here. There is a page that deals with an RfC against a user: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KaintheScion. Lately, a person who is involved in the dispute began to remove evidence against the target of the RfC. I had to revert him before to restore the evidence: which keeps on getting blanked out. I just need advice on what to do with the page. The main sticking point: sockpuppetry.
The target of the RfC, KaintheScion, and another user, ElKabong, were determined to be sockpuppets (Evidence: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong). ElKabong has removed the evidence about this sockpuppetry on several occasions ( [2], [3], and [4]). In the edit summaries too, he has attacked me (questioning my ethics). I know that pages like this might not allow protection, but I wish to as yall what should happen. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I (
User:Ted Wilkes) moved the following from the project page where it had been posted by an anonymous user: (cur) (last) 22:59, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.221.115 -
(cur) (last) 22:40, 1 Jun 2005 80.141.216.139
Please note that this ANONYMOUS user's only contributions to the Wikipedia are edits to Elvis Presley, David Bret and Nick Adams plus contraventions to Wikipedia official policy with repeated comments placed into Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have made a request for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please lock Joseph Stalin and History of the United States (1988-present) already for chrissakes? kthx J. Parker Stone 08:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
In an effort to make it clearer which requests have not been fulfiled or rejected and to reduce the amount on the page I have created an old requests section. When you have actioned or especially if you have rejected a request, please comment what you have done (e.g. "protected", or "no need for protection") and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page, this is so others can see what happened following the request and make further comment on it if they want.
Anyone can remove a request that is in the old section and has had no new comments for three days or longer, but admins can remove items earlier if they want (e.g. if the page gets too big).
If this doesn't work then we can always change it, but I think it will help stop the page get so large. We really shouldn't leave requests unactioned or unrejected for several days/weeks as happens at the moment. Hopefully this will make it clear what has been actioned and what hasn't. Thryduulf 14:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
should there? -- Revolución ( talk) 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree this makes a lot of sense.-- Ewok Slayer 18:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
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:
-- 62.255.64.6 23:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
Surely user pages (As opposed to talk pages) should be protected by defualt, such that only the user, or an admin, can edit them? Is there a better place to propose this? Andy Mabbett 12:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
As there were no further comments or counter-indications, I made it explicit that page move protection is within the scope of this page. Alai 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
This page was vandalsied yesterday [5] by Some guy and nobody noticed! SqueakBox 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The vandal was someone else, Some guy (a newbie) was trying to fix it but messed up. Apologies to him, SqueakBox 16:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
If anyone is having difficulties with the current system of protection, or just wants more variety, you may be interested in a new proposal called Semi-protection. If you have time, would you please check that page out and add your comments, sugguestions, and edits? Thanks. - Mys e ku rity 12:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Here is the vote on proposal 2 for semi-protection. Right now we have 20 for support, a few for neutral and 0 for oppose. We're close to submitting it to a community-wide vote. Vote if you would like to do. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 08:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
i think the page should be protected-- Junkbot44 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Any admin who's handled more than a few requests on this page would probably agree that it would be nice to have the protection log for each article easily accessible. I created a new template {{Particle}} to use on this page. It's used like the {{Vandal}} template for users. For example, someone who wants to see Wikipedia (un)protected would use {{Particle|Wikipedia}}, which would expand to Wikipedia ( talk · history · watch · protection log).
The drawback to this template is that articles with multiple word titles must use an underscore instead of a space. The {{Vandal}} template has this same limitation. For example, use {{Particle|Hurricane_Katrina}} to expand to Hurricane_Katrina ( talk · history · watch · protection log). This could be explained in the directions at the top of the page. Overall, I think the advantages of this template outweight the need to use underscores. Thoughts? Carbonite | Talk 19:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I 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)