Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Katefan0 (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 9 March 2006 (→{{Lu|Jadger}}: no; rm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates).

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:List of protected pages with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests lists current protection edit requests.

How to list page

Note: Always use ==== headings. Do not use ; or : or ==.

Current requests for protection

Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

Safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi -again! vandalism came back as soon as unprotected, damn YTMND vandals. Thanks Jesushaces 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Voice-of-All 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi-protection. A majority of page edits over the last week are vandalism by IPs. --Pmsyyz 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. The article is well watchlisted, so it can hold for now. Maybe if the vandalsim lasted for longer I might protect, but it just gets reverted. I've watchlisted it myself. Voice-of-All 17:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request Full Protection

The bio of Joel Leyden has been almost a daily target for vandalism. As an Israeli journalist and media consultant who works with the government I am used to media attacks by Palestinians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians. But do not need this harassment here in Misplaced Pages. I.e. - User:Rasmus Faber has been vandalizing my bio stating that I have been married twice (not true and not citing sources), and nominating my bio for deletion on a regular basis. Furthermore, I am involved in a child custody dispute where the other side may also be attempting to vandalize this article. Have just filed a police complaint after obtaining and IDing the IP address of an anonymous user who has also been vandalizing the article. I kindly request that this article be protected so that he and no other person with a political or personal agenda can upload libelous statements that could hurt my children. I would rather be spending time contributing to Wiki as a professional editor than defending my own bio. Thank you. Israelbeach 10:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind someone taking a look to see which of us is out of line. From my POV, User:Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden is asserting ownership of his own (auto)biography, removing info that reflects badly on him, as well as violating WP:NLT. Rasmus (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true Rasmus. I have not deleted any material from my bio, except for inaccurate and libelous information for which you posted without citing sources as per Wiki guidelines. Furthermore you continue to ignore all Wiki guidelines including the one clearly posted on the top of this page which states: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies." Israelbeach 11:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere near enough edits for a protect. · Katefan0/poll 18:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

California vehicular routes

California State Route 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 283 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 85 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Washington State Route 99 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 330 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 371 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 905 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), California State Route 190 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request Move protection (if not on already)

A user has taken the liberty of moving these pages to variants of "State Route x (California)" which is against consensus at WP:NC/NH. Edit wars have erupted or are about to erupt. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone involved in those edit wars let me say... protect those pages.JohnnyBGood 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The names of the highways are "State Route X", not "California State Route X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You should both now better. Just don't move the pages around in an editwarrior manner and the move war will go away. There's no way I'm handing you a protection on such a large number of articles just because of one move and move back. Self-control is key. -Splash 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tony Sidaway unprotected, but edit warring continued. I briefly reprotected, but feel I'm too closely involed to protect. —Ruud 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected. Voice-of-All 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There was some minor jockeying over the subject's nationality or ethnicity, and a reasonable amount of productive editing. I don't think protection was called for here. --Tony Sidaway 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill of Attainder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi-protection, this article is undergoing an edit war by a group of very silly anonymous ips arguing over whether sperm-whales with nuclear warheads or orcas are the better way to phrase something. One of them even posted on the talk page about it. Nardman1 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Voice-of-All 21:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Outright Libertarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting full protection to avoid an edit war, forcing all participants to Talk instead of revert. We just went through an ugly edit war, block and protect cycle over this exact same issue on both Ayn Rand and Objectivism and homosexuality, but now there's a new editor who hasn't quite figured out that this is about consensus.|

Just to remind you, when I asked for a Protect for Objectivism and homosexuality, it was refused, leading to the war I predicted. I'd like to avoid that this time around. Alienus 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your concern, but protection is not a pre-emptive strike. It has to be in response to a problem that cannot be otherwise solved. I don't see that here yet. (ESkog) 12:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the "other way" will once again involve blocking everyone involved. Alienus 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Voice-of-All 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet the guy who's been removing content just filed a 3RR on me. I hate being right. Alienus 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the 3RR had an off-by-one error so it was rejected. I'm going to talk to this guy and see if I can get him to discuss his desired change instead of edit-warring for it. Alienus 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not a justified reason to protect. I vote no. --MateoP 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. So how do you suggest I avoid an edit war here? Alienus 21:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An edit war always has at least two participants, no matter who is "right". Limit yourself to one revert per day and use some of our other dispute-resolution mechanisms such as Request for Comment and Third Opinion to try to establish a consensus among other editors. (ESkog) 12:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Drwhostub-02.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting full protection, because this image is currently on the Main Page . Korg (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected by user:NSLE. Voice-of-All 16:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Korg (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

Requesting full page protection to stop edit wars over a disputed reference that is currently the subject of a RfM. -- backburner001 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK...not getting IP drive byes and name changes mixed in, I'd say tha the edit war is not sever enough. I will notifify the editors. I do not know of any binding RfM condition so I will have to ignore that (You need to be more specific).Voice-of-All 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTIFIFY????? ha ha, j/k! --Cumbiagermen 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My intention for page protection was to enforce a "cool down" period and prevent RadioKirk from removing a template that was meant to call attention to our current dispute. Initially, I added this template and removed the disputed content because the template is worded in a manner that suggests that the content has already been removed from the article. In the spirit of avoiding confusion and as a result of the end of a truce, I wanted to protect a version of the page until we could resolve our issues when assigned a mediator. It appears, however, that RadioKirk has not removed the template, so I withdraw my protection request for now. -- backburner001 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The requesting user is the "edit war". Removal of data that is the instant subject of a RfM is vandalism (in the spirit of a request for mediation, the data's inclusion or deletion will be the decision of the Committee—it was included at the time the user filed the RfM and, therefore, deletion by the same user is a violation of his own signed agreement to mediate) and will be reverted as vandalism. RadioKirk talk to me 13:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Girls Aloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is turning into The Bogdanov Affair MkII. Frequent edit-warring and POV edits. Continual revert warring and POV-type vandalism. --Sudbereau 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bogdanov affair was used as a likeness on this article a few days ago. The two do not compare. This is getting two or three edits per day, and suggesting it is the subject of a deep-set, long-running, unfixable edit-war on the scale of Bogdanov doesn't work for me. So no, I'm going to reject this request again. -Splash 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's starting to become that way! A new Bogdanov Affair. --Sudbereau 18:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editors of the page as a group requested protection untill we are assigned a Mediator since any constructive edits are impossible untill mediation starts. Tony Sideway decided to remove protection today, I am re-requesting protection. Both sides of the issue have agreed to this enforced cease fire the only reason it's been locked for so long is that the mediators are taking forever to assign us one. It's not a case of if a revert war will happen again, it's a question of how many hours untill it happens. One group has publically stated they want the page deleted one group feels it should exist, this isn't an issue of "lets work out a compromise" since it's a delete or not delete question. Once again, the editors of this page requested the lock untill our mediation case starts, that case has been approved and is awaiting a mediator to be assigned, please keep it locked untill then. Seraphim 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's rather a big assumpiton that a request for re-protection is agreed by the various stakeholders in the discussion. Once again two misrepresentations of the facts. Anyway, this is not the place for that particular discussion. At present I disagree with the need for page protection. I'm content to wait for a mediator to appear and don't feel the need for any cease-fire, if that's what it is, to be enforced.ALR 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Tony's choice to unprotect was right. It'd been protected a good while, and it's not completely fair to pass responsibility for a would-be edit war off on to the slowness of the Mediators: it's entirely the fault of the warriors themselves. If you're both aware that edit warring is bad and working it out peacefully is good, then why not just try to do so? If the other party can't help but revert, resist the temptation to do it back — be the better editor. I'm not sure that the references to "group" are quite precise, since it does appear to be a two-user issue. I'm not going to reprotect it. I imagine Tony, or others, will hand out short blocks if either side resumes edit warring. -Splash 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

Template:R from title without diacritics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Again, I ask that this be unprotected. It's never been the subject of an edit war. Another person has recently asked (on the talk page) that the usage desciption be updated to match other related templates. AFAICT, this is the only protected "R from" template. --William Allen Simpson 12:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's protected per WP:HRT but it's used only by 2244 articles (see WP:TU). All such templates are found at WP:PPP. _→AzaToth 12:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill of attainder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One paragraph began with some silly metaphors to emphasize that the "bill of attainder clause" has proliferated to many constitutions of the World. Such "bill of attainder clauses" are now axiomatic as a fundamentally good idea. The beginning of the one paragraph was found to be redudant with other parts of the text and has been deleted. Please unprotect. -- OlympiaDiego 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was protected because of a minor issue (which can be seen in Talk:Croatia#History). Similar issues pop up every month, it's no big deal. Since it's an important article, protection is doing more harm than good. Please unprotect it. --Zmaj 07:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Will McWhinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was protected weeks ago, in mid-February. I unprotected yesterday but it was immediately placed into semiprotect by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who had made the original protection.

I unprotected, explaining why I was doing this: "There is no vandalism. In fact there have been no edits at all on the article for several weeks. There is therefore no reason to protect in any way."

SlimVirgin has reprotected it yet again and, bizarrely, she is complaining to me!

Albeit the article has been used for harassment in the past, it is being closely watched by at least two administrators and this is a wiki. I see no reason to continue with semiprotection just because there may be someone out there waiting to say something nasty.

Obviously comments by other administrators would be welcome here. I'm absolutely boggled by this. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I placed a note on WP:PP asking that anyone who wanted to unprotect contact me first, and I left a note on your talk page asking you to e-mail me about it, so instead of being "boggled," why don't you simply do that? The article has been used for a particular type of harassment (indeed, was created in the first place as part of a campaign of harassment), and I'm not prepared to go into detail about it on the website. I complained to you because you undid my admin actions twice without discussion. Leaving a note here instead of simply e-mailing for more information makes it look as though you're simply out to cause trouble. SlimVirgin 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony, how about you start by toning down the exclamations (points & otherwise). Please work on facilitating a dispassionate dialogue. El_C 14:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think SlimVirgin could tell me anything in email that I don't already know. There were some attacks. But those attacks were weeks ago and there has been no ongoing vandalism. This should be a routine unprotection. Which brings us to my use of the word "boggled". --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhpas it should be a routine unprotection, but it is courteous to assume the realm of possibility, Tony. El_C 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is, Tony, that it's good to respect an admin's request that s/he be contacted before protection is lifted. Perhaps you could explain why that basic courtesy is absent. SlimVirgin 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There are obviously deleted edits that "regular users" like myself cannot see. Regardless, I see no reason why the article in question should have been protected or semi-protected. If this is a foundation or Wales level problem, one of the foundation-connected adminstrators or Wales will need to use god-king powers to protect the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin doesn't seem able to discuss this publicly, so I shall render what I know (although for obvious reasons I'll have to omit some detail on content).

Maslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a suspected sock of Jonah_Ayers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created the article on 26 December last. Superficially a bio, it was interpreted as harassment by a Misplaced Pages admin. There were sporadic attempts, by User:Jonah Ayers and an IP that he uses, to reinsert the problematic information in a modified form that referred to the subject's son, and from 21 January to 17 February the article was frequently deleted and selective revisions undeleted in order to purge the information from the history.

The article was protected by SlimVirgin on 21 January, who switched it to semiprotect on 24th. Splash unprotected on 29th, saying:

• "interface says this is not protected, and this looks like an editorial problem, so don't semi (plus there were no anons or new users even editing it!)"

A few hours later, Dimes_for_eyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another suspected Ayers sock, inserted a modified version of the information that still referred to the subject's son.

Shortly aftewards, SlimVirgin semiprotected it again, stating (correctly)

• "user is inserting irrelevant personal details as part of a campaign of harassment"

On 16 February, Splash unprotected again, saying:

• "no grounds for protection at present; article is not behaving as protected anyway"

There was a bit more edit warring, and then on 18th SlimVirgin fully protected. It remained in that state until today when, observing that it was one of our oldest remaining temporary protections and there was no discussion on the talk page, I did a routine unprotection. After six hours and no edits, SlimVirgin semiprotected. As there had been no vandalism I unprotected. SlimVirgin reasserted semiprotection. I came to WP:RFPP.

The subject is probably encyclopedic, there are at least two administrators watching very closely, and the attempts at harassment are easily identified and stopped. There's no reason not to keep this article open for editing by all until fresh attempts are made to abuse it. If we don't try it, we'll never know. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that preventing personal information about an editor from being revealed is more important than the idea that "this is a wiki, let it be edited." Obviously there's a discussion to be had about at what point it's appropriate to unprotect (when's long enough to reasonably assume he's gone away?), but I don't think it's been quite enough time for the moment. Of course it would've been courteous to have this discussion with the protecting administrator beforehand, but anyway. · Katefan0/poll 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A question: Is this person notable enough to warrant an article in Misplaced Pages? We could place the article in AfD and see if there is consensus for deletion. That may resolve the the harassment issue once and for all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The subject may be notable enough. There were several column inches spilled about a dispute the subject McWhinney (not the alleged editor) about the "Krone" leadership development school, following the ideas of Gurdjeff that McWhinney later split over, fairly acrimonously according to news articles. See March 23 and April 10, 1987 San Francisco Chronicle. Seven references altogether in newspapers, latest one in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calwatch (talk • contribs)

I see. Thanks for the info. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the page deleted as a long-term solution, but it might not get through an AfD without explaining the issues we can't explain. SlimVirgin 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Support, page should be judged on what is available, and it does not give me the idea he is notable enough for wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We haven't seen this fellow vandalize the article in nearly three weeks, so what evidence do we have to justify semiprotection? --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as it was unprotected before, on two occasions that I recall, he started up again almost immediately, which suggests he's a regular editor with the page on his watchlist. What's more interesting is why you're so keen to remove semi-protection from an article almost no one has shown any interest in editing. SlimVirgin 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

BUt this time he didn't start up again. You took six hours to get around to semiprotecting--by which time any presumption that there was a high likelihood of vandalism must have been looking a little thin.

Why do I want to unprotect this article? Because I can see no good reason to continue to protect it after three weeks. If it is vandalized again, that will be a different matter. We cannot know whether it is still a vandalism target without unprotecting it. That is why we unprotect articles that have been vandalized in the past--usually, I might add, after only three or four days, not as many weeks. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But others do see a good reason, so why won't you accept that? Why must you always be right? SlimVirgin 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeated and insistent unprotecting of the article is fruitless and serves no purpose. This is not a high traffic article. There's no reason why in shouldn't be protected, at least until those there presently with personal axes to grind lose interest and wander off. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, this seems a little back-to-front to me. We need a reaseon to semiprotect, or keep semiprotected, not a reason to unprotect. I'll request once again that semiprotection be raised in a week's time--even the George W. Bush article gets a weekly unprotection. This one has had just six hours in three weeks. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no comparison with George W. Bush. This page is about as low traffic as they come. SlimVirgin 06:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a particularly poor analogy, since there is no valid reason whatsoever to unprotect George W. Bush on a weekly basis, and doing so basically constitutes ongoing passive-aggressive sabotage of an official policy, the moral equivalent of nominating Gay Nigger Association of America for AfD on a weekly basis on the grounds that "maybe this time it'll be different". Since no one particularly cares to play wheel-warring games of chicken with you at the GWB article, you're now trying to claim that as some kind of baseline norm applicable to other articles. -- Curps 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think that there is no valid reason to regularly unprotect George W. Bush? You lost me at about that point. If you are at all familiar with the case, you will be aware that overall edits are 10-20 times lower than they were three months ago, while the proportion of vandalism-related edits has risen again and is now comparable with the proportion that pertained prior to the introduction of semiprotection. --Tony Sidaway 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Curps' point may be that you've taken it upon yourself to insert yourself into the George W. Bush situation, as you have here, armed with an extremist principle that protection and even semi-protection is always a bad thing, regardless of circumstances. You're entitled to that view, but you have no right to go around imposing it on other admins, because we're entitled to our views too. Yet you persistently look for pages to wheel war over, and end up feeling you're right to do so only because, most of the time, people can't be bothered to argue with you. SlimVirgin 06:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Without further clarification those statements aren't meaningful. If the article is semi-protected some or much of the time, it's hardly surprising that overall edits are down. This is hardly a bad thing, it's likely a sign that semi-protection is working. Yet the statement that the number of edits is down is very often seen to be cited as grounds for un-sprotecting. What percentage of the time is it sprotected now, and what percentage of the time was it sprotected then? And a mere count of edits is not meaningful in itself: you can have multiple consecutive vandal edits with a single revert, etc, or multiple valid "word-processor" style edits. For a relatively mature article the background editing rate is modest; in its unprotected state the edits are dominated by vandalism and reverts of vandalism, so essentially half the edits are vandalism and the other half are reverting vandalism (counting multiple edits as one, as described above). Are you really claiming that when the article is in an sprotected state, half the edits are aged sleeper registered-account vandals? -- Curps 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You correctly recognise that it's a complex situation. The answer to your questions on figures is obvious--I'm comparing it to the state of affairs that existed before semiprotection was available. On this particular article vandalism reverts are approximately one-for-one with vandalism--it's watched that closely. Vandalism rates have climbed while editing rates plummeted . It is nearly always semiprotected.

I'm not sure what your chart is measuring, but it seems that "Percent" (whatever that is) averaged around 30% before sprotection (this is clearer if you push the start date back a few weeks) and it now averages around 15% (with a spike to 25% in the past week only, which is likely not statistically significant due to lower statistics overall for that week and the preceding week). So if revert percentage is a measure of vandalism rate, your own figures seem to suggest this is down by at least half since sprotection was introduced. -- Curps 07:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my view of protection is at all extremist. It is to be used where necessary, no more and no less. Semiprotection in particular is to be applied in response to the threat of vandalism (and never as a prophylactic against the mere possibility of vandalism). The regular unprotects of the George W. Bush article have been challenged twice but both times enjoyed overwhelming consensus. This is the way we do things on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's you who decides when it's "necessary," and you won't allow people to disagree with you. Editors who go trawling through the encyclopedia on missions, as you do, always end up causing problems, whether it's mass unprotection or changing British to American spelling. As for the "overwhelming consensus" you say unprotection of George W. Bush attracts, take the point that most of the time most people simply can't be bothered to challenge you. And please stop saying that "this is how we do things." We are telling you that it is not how everyone does things. SlimVirgin 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Where was this "overwhelming consensus" expressed? I don't recall seeing it or participating in it. The last overwhelming consensus I recall was the one that made semi-protection an official policy. I'm also not sure how "predictable, unrelenting vandalism over many months and years" suddenly becomes the "mere possibility of vandalism". -- Curps 07:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I will propose AFD based on the merits and not based on the back story of the editor who may or may not share the same name whom I may or may not know, just as a shot. Calwatch 05:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The back story will come out. For this kind of deletion, I suggest that an office action of some kind would be preferable. The article, besides, would have no real hope of being deleted on AfD. Its subject is a published author. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now we're allowed to be discreet, are we? Bit late for that, Tony. SlimVirgin 06:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the article's subject would like it deleted and there's no other articles that link to it, I see no reason go through a perfunctory AFD, it should just be immediately deleted. FeloniousMonk 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. SlimVirgin 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. The subject should probably take it to Jimbo, and he can authorize that. --Tony Sidaway 08:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. FeloniousMonk 17:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.