User:Stbalbach/Age of Enlightenment protection discussion
This is an archive of the discussion regarding a request to semi-protect Age of Enlightenment. It is saved here because at the time there was no mechanism in place for easily viewing protection page archives.
Ive watched this article for over a year and it is one of the most heavily vandalized articles on my watchlist. I've never seen a dispute or edit controversy, it's almost all constant reversion of vandalism. This is a big topic for high school students doing research. Anything that can be done to slow down the vandalism of this article would be appreciated. --Stbalbach 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Out of the lat 100 edits, about 40 have been vandalism/reversions. I'll temporarily semi-protect it Sceptre (Talk) 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- That is NOT a factor in the decision to semi protect. % of good edits over x period of time is not a factor. If it was, we'd be protecting hundreds of pages and that's not an exaggeration. I'll leave it protected for a time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- At first I though kitty was out of his mind, but I actually agree when I think about it. The reason is simple, a) counting reverts inflates the number and ratio of good to bad is not the main factor. b)If an article has 20 vandalisms spread out over a long time, out 100 edits over that time, you get 40% vandals/reverts. But it could clearly not need protection.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. For the entire month of January, the article in question has 12 edits...total. And that's including reversions and the SP tag being put on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Semi is a solution to a serious, current vandalism problem. This article just does't have one. It can go days without being edited at all. Note that there is an explicit statement in WP:SEMI about not using it for run-of-the-mill vandalism and that it is not a tool to reduce or prohibit anon editing in general. Clearly, in this case, that is the primary effect of the protection. I've unprotected. -Splashtalk 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- This article is not "run of the mill" vandalism. Obviously its not like Hurricane Katrina, but there are not as many people watching this article either. Since December first I count 21 different people who vandalized the article. This is a slow period, a month like Sept or Oct is much higher. Contrast this with the number of legit edits by people who would otherwise be blocked by a semi-protection, I count 2 or 3. Thats about 10 bad edits for every 1 or 2 good edits (just looking at people who would be effected by a block), and this ratio is worse in most prior months. What's "run of the mill" when there is an order of magnitude more anon vandals than legit anon editors, consistently month after month. --Stbalbach 03:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Every article gets vandalism. This particular article gets 3 or 4 edits total per day. That isn't a problem so large it justifies wholesale restriciton of anonymous and new users. Further, consider that there is no problem in particular being addressed by semi here, other than a desire to reduce anon editing in general: WP:SEMI forbids that, since it is a non-negotiable Foundation Issue. -Splashtalk 03:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- there is no problem in particular being addressed by semi here - I thought I made a case there is in the big picture. Your focus is on the number of edits per day in the past motnh or so, that semi is only used when there is a "storm". This article has a systemic long-term problem where 9 of 10 anon edits are vandals, that is not typical, and is frankly a real drain on the time and resources of otherwise good editors. But I have no doubt this article will see storms in the future. --Stbalbach 05:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Every article gets vandalism. This particular article gets 3 or 4 edits total per day. That isn't a problem so large it justifies wholesale restriciton of anonymous and new users. Further, consider that there is no problem in particular being addressed by semi here, other than a desire to reduce anon editing in general: WP:SEMI forbids that, since it is a non-negotiable Foundation Issue. -Splashtalk 03:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to link to this discussion from the article Talk page so there is a record of this discussion for future protection requests. I dont see an archives of this page, are protection discussions archived? --Stbalbach 03:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, you'd have to find the removal diff in the history, unfortunately. -Splashtalk 03:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- If I were you, I would simply copy this and put this in your userspace, Stbalbach. As far I know, that's allowed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- ok will do.. an articles history of protection discussions is a valuable piece of information/evidence. --Stbalbach 05:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- If I were you, I would simply copy this and put this in your userspace, Stbalbach. As far I know, that's allowed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, you'd have to find the removal diff in the history, unfortunately. -Splashtalk 03:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- This article is not "run of the mill" vandalism. Obviously its not like Hurricane Katrina, but there are not as many people watching this article either. Since December first I count 21 different people who vandalized the article. This is a slow period, a month like Sept or Oct is much higher. Contrast this with the number of legit edits by people who would otherwise be blocked by a semi-protection, I count 2 or 3. Thats about 10 bad edits for every 1 or 2 good edits (just looking at people who would be effected by a block), and this ratio is worse in most prior months. What's "run of the mill" when there is an order of magnitude more anon vandals than legit anon editors, consistently month after month. --Stbalbach 03:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Semi is a solution to a serious, current vandalism problem. This article just does't have one. It can go days without being edited at all. Note that there is an explicit statement in WP:SEMI about not using it for run-of-the-mill vandalism and that it is not a tool to reduce or prohibit anon editing in general. Clearly, in this case, that is the primary effect of the protection. I've unprotected. -Splashtalk 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. For the entire month of January, the article in question has 12 edits...total. And that's including reversions and the SP tag being put on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- At first I though kitty was out of his mind, but I actually agree when I think about it. The reason is simple, a) counting reverts inflates the number and ratio of good to bad is not the main factor. b)If an article has 20 vandalisms spread out over a long time, out 100 edits over that time, you get 40% vandals/reverts. But it could clearly not need protection.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- That is NOT a factor in the decision to semi protect. % of good edits over x period of time is not a factor. If it was, we'd be protecting hundreds of pages and that's not an exaggeration. I'll leave it protected for a time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)