User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Protecting the page

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Question and Suggestion (Archive 9)

My question: Any reason not to unprotect this page now?

Suggestion: Perhaps the "Requests and nominations for de-adminship" should be moved off on to another page, as that seems to be causing problems. Having this page protected from editing largely defeats the legitimate primary function.

Alternatively or additionally, perhaps we could have a seperate page along the lines of "Allegations of Sysop abuse"? -- Infrogmation 01:48, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sysops aren't people, Admins are. IMO, "Allegations of Sysop/Adim abuse" would be just as bad as what "Conflicts between users" has become. I'm not sure what to do. --mav 01:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

I've unprotected the page, and cannot see why it was protected in the first place - Lir's complaint seems a perfectly valid one to me. Hephaestos does not have the authority to block signed in users except in cases of simple vandalism, which, as far as I can tell, this is not. Was the blocking reported anywhere at all (I don't see any discussion on Lir's talk page, and didn't see it mentioned on the mailing list). Incidentally, I do support the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship or similar to make this sort of stuff separate. --Camembert

It was protected due to an edit war (see the history). As I stated above, I think Lir's complaint against me is quite worthy of discussion. I think Lir's complaint against 168 is not, however, and that is what started the edit war. - Hephaestos 02:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Is admin abuse so bas as to merit its own page? --mav 02:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Such a page would be a fun place for the trolls to hang out, anyway. - Hephaestos 02:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Agree with both Mav and Heph. Lir's and Wik's loud complaints aside, I really don't see much evidence of sysops abusing their powers. This page seems the perfect venue for airing such problems. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
IMO the question may not be if admin abuse is so bad, but rather if discussion/allegations of such are so bad as to diminish the functionality of the "Requests for adminship" page. I think that's already happening. -- Infrogmation 02:25, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So the answer is to create a separate page where such baseless complaints can multiply? --mav
Multiply and be ignored, yes. Like the ban requests. It seems the norm around here. - Hephaestos 02:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) - OK, I admit there was a reason to protect the page (and I admit, I didn't realise it was the 168 stuff - which does seem more trivial - which got it started), but I hope it's OK that I've unprotected it now. I'd ask the people who were removing Lir's complaints not to do so - you might disagree with Lir (I do myself in many ways), but the complaints aren't entirely ridiculous, and there's no reason to not allow them to be aired. Removing them might give the impression that we admins are so arrogant that we cannot possibly conceive of one of our number ever doing anyting wrong (yes, I know that's not how we feel, but perceptions matter if we're to be respected). Let the argument run its course, then remove them. In any case, having an edit war over it is pretty counter-productive.

I think a separate page for admin abuse would be a good thing not because admin abuse is particularly common or anything like that, but because if we're going to have edit wars over it such as this one, they shouldn't interfere with legitimate discussions about the creation of admins. Also, I think that this page ought to be such a nice place where people can say lovely things about each other and give one another a leg-up. I know it sounds wet, but all this vitriol is rather unpleasant and better sectioned off, IMO. --Camembert 02:31, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The complaints were aired, Camembert. Possibly they should have been allowed to remain for a little longer before being removed to make room for more substantive matters, possibly not. Your general thrust is something I entirely agree with. However, these particular circumstances are a little different: Lir was not bringing a particular specific complaint about a particular specific administrator, Lir was casting wholesale complaints about every admin he had managed to cross swords with. The intention was clear: if you disagree with Lir about an article, Lir will attempt to get your sysop rights removed. If there was a genuine complaint, as opposed to a concerted campaign that amounted to complaining about everyone, it would be a different matter. In this case, however, it is a simple matter of Lir throwing mud in every direction, hoping that enough of it will stick, and that he will thus be a little freer to rampage through the Wikipedia, overriding any and all other community members with his customary gleeful edit wars. You can stop it now or you can stop it later. It's a whole lot easier, and less disruptive, to stop it now. Tannin 02:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
PS: your second para about not liking vitrol on this page, Camembert. Yes, I agree entirely. I am inclined to think that restricting this page to genuine complaints (which are few and far between) is the better way to do it, but I am open to persuasion on that. Tannin 02:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, Lir's complaint about Hephaestos banning him was a genuine one (and at the very least, it was a specific one against a specific admin) - admins shouldn't ban signed in users unless it's a case of simple vandalism. Of course, I wouldn't want to paint Lir whiter than snow - he has his foibles, let's say - and I'm sure Heph acted with good intentions, but this wasn't a clear-cut case of simple vandalism. There might be a case for banning Lir (I really don't know), but one admin making a snap decision to do so isn't on.
I suppose part of the problem in removing complaints is that we don't have any procedure in place for desysopping people or any guidelines on what might constitute an action so bad that it would result in desysopping. This makes it difficult to say when an argument can really be said to have run its course and be deleted from the page with confidence. Anyway, I'm not going to say more about this - it's not a very fun subject :) Apologies for rambling on so. --Camembert 03:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

wow, I must say its rather horrifying to see you all discussing your own lack of over sight in such a cavalier manner. This does not bode well. "Genuine complaints" appears to be defined as those complaints which some unknown number of admins agrees with. The rabble such as myself clearly have no place here, our complaints are speedilly removed to our user pages, and the problem left to fester. Jack 02:51, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quite right. We should not leave problems to fester. Instead, we should be much more proactive in dealing with our problem users, instead of letting them troll on forever. Tannin 02:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. I suggest you impliment a plan of harassment and intimidation of all who question your authority. The name for all who defy you is "Troll"! Seek out areas where these poor fools are attempting to utilize dubious resources and statistics (like the CIA world factbook) or in otherways divert from the "official wikipedia POV" of brutal nihilism. If they won't immediately cower before your superiority, bring in a squad of likeminded admins. Rearrange CbU in shocking and bizarre ways, carefully cutting and pasting passages so as to maximize their shame and insult. If that doesn't work, you can always unilaterally ban them. Just don't let Jimbo know about any of this! I hear he grows soft and weak in his later years, even mumbling about "welcoming new editors" and "inclusionism".... Jack 03:17, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Trying to summarize the discussion:

  1. The requests for adminship bit of the page is agreed to be a useful and successful utility page.
  2. The requests for de-adminship bit had been less so.
Matter arising: Should the page be spilt. Two opinions:
Yes) They are separate concerns.
No) It would create another page for trolls.

In my view, the balance of opinon was to create a new page. Thus please take a look at Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Idea about protecting closed RFAs (Archive 26)

After an RFA has been closed, should we also have the bureaucrat who closes said nomination protect the RFA? I think it would make lives a bit easier, and it would force people to use Joe Wikipedian (2) instead of erasing a previous failed nomination. Just a thought; please comment. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. However, It certainly wouldn't hurt anything. Ingoolemo talk 22:40, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
Agree with the above, I can't see the problem this solution would solve. I'm suspicious in general of protecting pages without a cause; imagine for instance someone wants to add a category to all of them, or a link to some related page. --cesarb 22:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flurry of newbie votes (Archive 47)

Hello, bureaucrats? I'm a bit concerned about the contributions pattern of Mjal (talk · contribs), who has been posting a lot of RFA votes today. I've dropped a gentle (well, I tried) query on his page. Bishonen | talk 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

So, why exactly isn't the page semi-protected permanently? Seems like a good enough example of what happens when sockpuppets or misguided new members find this page. --tomf688{talk} 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Because semi-protection policy states that semi-protection is not be used proactively. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Try telling that to George W. Bush. Sorry, I have to keep bringing it up. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is outrageous. It can't be mere conisidence that such an extravagent number of new users flock to this page out of the blue. Assuming good faith, that's nigh immposible; as wikipedia is extremely expansive site. It's very difficult to learn the abbreviations for policy and project page right of the bat without a lick of experience. And it is my opinion that some of these users are attemptting to game the system, henceforth being experienced users in a new name, or sockpuppets.
There is a problem here.
And if they are new users who "by accident" happen to arrive here and vote, we can always refrator it and ask them to stop being silly sausages. rfa has become progressively a more and more serious affair. It is not a game, and we need experienced users to vote for experienced people to gain the highest quality admins possible. -ZeroTalk 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-active semiprotection of articles is held to be undesirable, but RfA is not an article. I really don't see any good reason a brand-new account or anon IP needs to post on RfA. Jonathunder 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But anons have always been allowed to comment, and at one time they were allowed to vote too, before vote counting became so important. == Cecropia 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection may be a option worth looking into however. Experienced wikipedians are more likely to make expereinced-based votes. There have been two cases of "joke rfa's" as of late as well. This may be very feasible. -ZeroTalk 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We can always amend semi-prot policy. Note that we are already in the habit of preemptively protecting high-risk templates, so I don't see the harm in semiprotting some pages in Wikispace, as they're not articles. >Radiant< 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How about semi-protecting the main page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but not its subpages? Is this possible? That would forbid new users to make a self-nomination (or to nominate someone else and place a non-accepted nomination on the main page), while they can still comment on other ones. - Liberatore(T) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be easy. >Radiant< 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
But they can still vote, which is the "problem" raised in this topic. --tomf688{talk} 01:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

semi-protecting RfAs (Archive 54)

In light of the difficulties over the HRE nomination, and the extraordinary lengths that Linuxbeak has been forced to take to make sure that only real wikipedians actually vote (which has certain unsatisfactory side-effects imo), I wonder whether a similar result might not be more simply achieved by using semi-protection on RfAs. This would prevent IPs and accounts younger than five days from voting, which would prevent the worst sock-puppetry. And b-crats are supposed to discount their vote anyways. Yes, it would prevent legitimate IPs and new accounts from participating in the discussion, which the present policy allows, but I can't honestly remember an occasion when one wanted to. (Perhaps they could be encouraged to post to the b-crat's talk page and have him/her repost comments when necessary.) Bucketsofg 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  • I'd support this. The rules already do this on a defacto basis by giving bureaucratships discression to ignore new users who are likely sock puppets. But doing this formally wouldn't hurt things. The only thing I wonder about is if there is a real need to do this? Is HRE the only instance of this happening?--Alabamaboy 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah sounds like a good plan. And I dont think many new users will be offended. However, I do see a problem with some longstanding legitimate anon IP contributors (i'd point to a specific vandal whacker, but I keep forgetting his IP! ;-) ). The Minister of War (Peace) 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I think you mean User:68.39.174.238? Also, he (and any other experienced anon) will realize that if they have something useful to say they can say it on the talk page of the RfA. As long as that's not at all protected we might be fine. However, I'd still have reservations since it is possible (althouhg unlikely) that a fairly new anon or user has something useful to say about a canidate but won't realize that they can still use the RfA talk page. JoshuaZ 13:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    That's the one! The Minister of War (Peace) 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If anons are creating a nuisance by repeatedly ballot stuffing and trolling, semi-protection I would support a semi-protection policy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A technical glitch on the plan (for RfA semi-protection): semi-protection prevents accounts that are newer than five days from editing. RfAs run for seven days. 2-day window there (if one sets up the account on the day the RfA opens). Therefore, only 100% effective concerning IPs. Don't know if that even matters, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Redux 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
True, it's hard to weed out dedicated nusiance makers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- This proposal is overdue. Users who have any intention of contributing in general to our policy making and community building are free at any time to register an account; it's not even required to submit a bogus email address. We do not, as a matter of current policy, give weight to comments from users who are unwilling to make this effort. It might be more polite not to permit them to make edits in false hope. Meanwhile, semi-protection will eliminate the risk that a busy b-crat may be misled by invalid comments. John Reid 22:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Commenting in RfA's requires a level of commitment to the community that a user who would be blocked by Semi-Protection will almost never have. The rare instance of a productive and trusted stable IP (identified above) can be handled with a talk page post. The two-day window at the end does not bother me - it will be blaringly obvious if a bunch of unusual votes materialize after the fifth day, when most RfA's are already winding down, and trolls will be deprived of the opportunity to ruin the tone of the RfA before legit voters can express their opinions. bd2412 T 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support sounds like a good idea, as long as the talk page were left open for our super anons. Prodego talk 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Meaning we have to maintain a whitelist as well? The Minister of War (Peace) 09:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    The talk page would not be protected, ergo would be open for everyone. No "whitelist" needed, but it's easy to see whether an anon has a positive contribution record. bd2412 T 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    Talk page has far less visibility when compared to the comments section. Tintin (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    Technically, this shouldn't be a problem, they could be transcluded into the nominations just like the nominations are transcluded into the RfA main page now. Femto 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good idea as well. Martin 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure semi-protection should be added by default to RfAs, for the reasons Flcelloguy stated above. However, that said, there are always cases in which a disruptive anonymous editor hides behind an AOL proxy (Quadell's RFB comes to mind), in which semi-protection should not be ruled out as an viable option. After all, AFDs are not semi-protected by default, but are semi-ed if there is disruptive sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a step in the right direction towards clear and meaningful suffrage rules. Kusma (討論) 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. Helps saving wikipedian time. --Ligulem 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. An elegantly simple measure that would go a long way towards solving a problem. It would ensure only users vote, thus making it easier for whomever closes the RfA to tally it. It might also be one more incentive for people to create user accounts. Sunray 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this would NOT prevent non-registered users from participating in the discussion - that is what this page is for, and this page would not be semiprotected (only the 'vote' page) Cynical 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per Cynical, and also to prevent users from creating sock puppets just to vote Mets501talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 08:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Sunray. RFA's will be a good incentive for users to sign up. The stoppage of trolling & sockpuppeteering would'nt hurt either. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • This is such an occasional occurence, that there's no need imo. Most RfAs, even close-run ones come nowhere near the debacle that is HRE's. I'd oppose the use of protection as a tool for restricting participation, unless that participation was actually, currently, vandalous. Otherwise, it'd be protection where it isn't actually needed. It's enough to judge it on a case-by-case basis. -Splashtalk 13:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against the semi-protection of RfA, as I've stated in the past before. Bureaucrats should not - and do not - simply ignore comments by IP addresses or relatively new users; such users could provide good faith views and opinions to the RfA. Bureaucrats are trusted to determine community consensus, and simply because a user has not created an account should not prohibit them from giving their opinions. Of course, if there is suspicion of bad faith and/or sock puppets, the appropriate measures (like tagging such votes) should be taken, but automatically excluding all IP addresses and new users should not be done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. Semi-protection is only a tool we use against vandalism, and any other use is a violation of the policy. Even though anonymous users don't have suffrage at RFAs, and new users may see their votes discounted, they must be allowed to comment on an RFA. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    SJakkalle. I appreciate that this is what the policy is now; I suppose what I'm suggesting is that we revisit the policy. Bucketsofg 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but the restriction on semi-protection to vandalism only is for some very good reasons. First, protection is itself "unwiki", we only do it when the alternative (letting the vandals roam or edit wars continue) is worse. Second, we don't want to create "caste" systems where contributors must be of a certain "level" in order to edit something. As a rule, protection is not meant as a banishment of a certain class of editor from editing a page ever, indeed it is a very real downside to protection that innocent editors don't get a chance to edit, and should only mean that the contribution from the anon/new user is delayed, not prevented. As a rule, the discussions we have on Wikipedia are open and free for anyone to contribute to, and employing a semi-protection here runs counter to the spirit of a Wiki. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Those are all important points. We want to make all articles as open as possible. And we want to avoid creating a caste-system. But we've done it anyway here at RFA, no? B-crats are supposed to ignore votes from IPs and new users, which merely means that we do manually what could be done in software. That being said, I doubt whether such a policy could make it through the process. I'm enjoying the discussion, however, since it's sometimes easier to forget the bigger principles while working away in the trenches. Bucketsofg 14:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm against this idea too. Things like HRE's RfA do not happen all the time. What happened/is happening with HRE is such an occasional occurance that it's an anomoly... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, since its you thats doing all the hard work, if you dont mind I guess its okay then. Onsidering it again, perhaps a systematic protection isnt necessary, but in this particular case there may be some merit to do so... The Minister of War (Peace) 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, Linuxbeak, that this does not happen often (thank goodness). Socks are not completely unheard of, though. Originally, I had thought that a standing semi-protect would be useful for AfDs, where IPs and socks seem to be a frequent (though not regular) occurence. Anyway, it's not something I'm wedded to, I just wonder whether there's a way to use an already-existing mechanism in a way that makes such processes work better. Bucketsofg 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protecting AfD's would stop new users from being able to defend their articles, and the authors of articles that are up for deletion are very frequently new. --Tango 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Our AfD process already has a major biting-the-newbies issues. It would be even worse if they weren't even allowed to comment. Admins who close AfDs are on the lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets and the vast majority of them are obvious. JoshuaZ 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes, I see that. Newby-biting is a big problem there, which a standing semi-protect might make worse. Oh well, it was just an idea. Bucketsofg 14:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the continuing instruction creep and wiki-lockups of the alarmists. -lethe talk + 00:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose not needed in the vast majority of cases. Cases like this one can be handled on an individual basis. --Tango 10:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose Problem not serious enough to justify such an extreme solution. Borisblue 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose if it comes to voting. I am for suffrage rules, but there is no need to restrict anyone from making comments in RfAs. Tintin (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose most RfAs don't need to be protected. The other cases should be treated individually.  Grue  14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The fundamental principle on Wikipedia is that anything is editable by anybody at any time. Of course, there are restrictions in places, but only where it has been shown that protection is an absolute must, like the main page, the welcome template. There is no compelling reason to enforce semiprotection on RfA's. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per tintin, although useful comments from very new users in RfAs seem rare. Semi-protecting these pages is just asking for a WP:BITE issue. JoshuaZ 16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, instruction creep and alarmism. IPs have provided bona fide comments in some recent RfAs. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. If people are serious about changing this policy shouldn't a discussion be started at the Semi protection page. RicDod 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, since this seems to have turned into a poll, oppose per my reasoning above and per Oleg Alexandrov. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose (even though I was the one who originally suggested it). I'm persuaded by the points raised by many of you that this would not be the way to go. I wonder, however, if sound practice might not be to slap a semi on them at the first sign of sock-puppetry. At least in the current mess with the HRE-nomination, one sock from one side was met quite quickly with a couple for the other, etc. Had this been contained earlier, the current voting rules (which many have raised concerns about) may not have been necessary. Bucketsofg 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There isn't enough reason here to justify a policy degrading one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia: that anyone can edit any page. Sometimes particular pages need to be protected as a matter of practical consideration, but protecting an entire class of pages as a matter of policy is a step we don't need to, and shouldn't take. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doug Bell FloNight talk 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • neutral, As per Sjakkalle and Cynical. Not the "only for vandalism" part; but rather, we don't vote here, hence shouldn't be setting suffrage requirements. even those whose "votes" are discounted should, theoretically, have the right to make comments. On the other hand, we could easily semi-protect the page itself, and leave the talk open for such comments, which would leave the rfa itself clear of sock-and/or-meatpuppets and etc . . . which isn't quite ideal either way. so i have no strong feelings in either direction. --heah 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not needed in the majority of RfAs. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. RfAs can be sprotected in rare cases of unusual activities. But after all, it's the Bureaucrats' job to close a debate and these are trusted and thorough people, aren't they? Misza13 T C 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Grue. Everybody should be able to comment on RfA. abakharev 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for quasi-protection (Archive 58)

(Apologies, but I feel like because this proposal tangentially deals with RfA, I should bring it up here. Thanks!) Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappa.jake

(Have made this subsection an indented section of the QPP due to possible application of QPP to cases like this in future...)

I've taken the step of semiprotecting this RFA, due to ongoing AOL IP vandalism that continually forges signatures and votes. It's gone on since the start of this RFA. The last time I did this (Quadell's RFB), I was criticised, but here I don't think there's a better way to deal with this vandalism. NSLE (T+C) at 03:49 UTC (2006-05-28)

I don't think the result will be controversial on this RfA either way. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning for bureaucrats closing RFAs (Archive 59)

I'm not sure if this was an isolated incident, or something that's hit other RFAs as well, but my opinion on Ynhockey's nom was removed by an AOL IP last night, and wasn't restored for nearly a day, when I revisited the page and noticed it missing. It wouldn't matter on that particular nom, but on close discussions, this might be more of a problem. Ral315 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not RfA (unless I'm confused) - B'crats are not allowed to close AfD's? -- Tawker 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I just changed the header. RFAs, not AFDs. I need sleep. Ral315 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
{{sogosleep}} - seriously, I think its something not just 'crats need to worry about, we all do. The sprotection on the RfA listing page makes sense, no non autoconfirmed user would add an RfA to the list anyways so hopefully that will solve the problem -- Tawker 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But Ral is not talking about something that happened in the listing page. It took place in a specific RfA, which is not edited from the main RfA page. That is, what happened would not have been avoided by sprotecting the RfA listing page. As far as RfAs are concerned, I believe we have already discussed and decided against any kind of protection for RfA pages, since anyone is allowed to comment (although unregistered users are not counted in determining consensus for promotion). It is rather unfortunate that a blatant act of vandalism (as it seems) on a RfA could have gone unnoticed for this long. Although I believe that it is highly unlikely that it would not be noticed until the RfA's deadline, we all need to be prepared to help out in instances like this, which might slip by a single user's vigilance. Redux 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been said before: Bureaucrats are not, and cannot, be responsible for watching every single edit to every RfA. It is the responsibility of every editor on Wikipedia to watch for inappropriate editing, and to correct it whenever they find it, whether it is in the articlespace, the userspace, on an RfA, on a template, etc. etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum. There are dozens of participants on ever Rfa, and less than a dozen active bureaucrats; participants (and indeed, non-participants as well) need to be watching for this sort of thing, and correcting it, or at the very least, noting it, when it happens. We watch for signs of foul play when closing, but it's impossible to track each and every one of the multiple hundreds of votes cast on dozens of RfAs each day. This has to be a community effort. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have an Idea, there should be a list of RfA's with a "watch" link next to them that links to "WP:RFA/Username&action=watch". Then when the RFA is done, it should be moved to another list and there could be a link to "unwatch". There still should be people watching RfAs after closing them, and I'll be happy to keep them on my watchlist. I don't have enough pages on my WL. I have 1500 pages. That is too little. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually noted the missing vote. The related comments suddednly showed up under my comments, and I made another comment asking what happened. I should have gone through the diffs to find what happened. Again fatigue stops someone from taking a needed action. Whta would have been a better way to draw attention to something like that.11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
Placing a note here on this talk page would be a good start to getting a number of people to check into what went on. You could also leave a message on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this incident is a good enough reason to semiprotect RfAs. In the same way one could say that Wikipedia articles must be semiprotected as they get occasional vandalism. Semiprotection is something which goes againt the Wikispirit and should be used exceedingly sparingly. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection, in general, is against this enigmatic "wikispirit" too, but there still exist pages which are permanently protected. Who knows how often this really happens? I know I rarely ever go back and check to see if my votes are in still in place, and I doubt many (if any?) people religiously check every edit that a user adds to a nominee's subpage. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the key here is that we do not do preemptive protection. In the case of the RfA page (the "listing page"), we have no grounds for any protection (full or semi-). The incident in question doesn't count towards that page, since, as I said in my previous comment, the page that was edited in order to remove Ral's rationale was not the listing page, but rather a specific RfA. And as far as protecting any RfAs, again refer to our previous discussions where it was decided that that shouldn't be done (anons are not allowed to support/oppose, but they are allowed to comment). Redux 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on RfAs are the same as vandalism anywhere else, and there are standard procedures for dealing with them. It seems one slipped through the net for a while, but that can happen anywhere on Wiki. Hopefully most editors contributing to a RfA would spot and revert. Tyrenius 01:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me just say for the record that I don't support semi-protection either; my original post was simply to warn that this may have been an effort to affect more than one RFA. It appears that didn't play out. Ral315 (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL IPs and RFA (Archive 59)

I'm concerned about the recent spike in AOL IPs attacking RFAs forging votes. It constantly seems to be the same IP, should we block it? I've already had to semiprotect two RFAs in the past week. NSLE (T+C) at 01:19 UTC (2006-06-04)

I already have blocked it. 30 minutes. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Question is, would it be possible to consider a logner block? It doesn't seem to be a dynamic IP from first look. NSLE (T+C) at 01:30 UTC (2006-06-04)
Which is sehr unusual, static AOL IP? I'm not sure blocking it for longer is a good idea if it is an AOL IP. I'm expecting the abusive "OMG h0w dar3 u b10xxor m3" emails soon. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it's an IP range that's been attacking RFAs. NSLE (T+C) at 01:40 UTC (2006-06-04)

At the risk of opening up a Pandora's box, can we (at least temporarily) semi-protect all RFAs? NSLE (T+C) at 02:11 UTC (2006-06-04)

It would make perfect sense for RFAs to be semi-protected by default as well, in my opinion, since IP votes are not accepted anyway, though that would be a hassle to Sysops. Cowman109Talk 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
IPs are not allowed to vote, but they are allowed to comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yesssir! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just semiprotected Siva1979's RFA. NSLE (T+C) at 02:16 UTC (2006-06-04)
Just voted on Kukini's RFA. I suggest a longer block. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked 24h. Also, this isn't just any ol' AOL IP, it's a proxy. If vandalism continues from there once the block expires, I'll indef-block as an open proxy. RadioKirk talk to me 03:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a simlar but non-AOL example, signing as "froggy". The user (I'm pretty sure it was the same one) later registered an account and voted under his username Uninsureddriver. Related info also at the bottom of this talk page archive. Kusma (討論) 03:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Uninsureddriver has also edited User talk:Containment Unit, another name used above, so there seems to be a connection. Kusma (討論) 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

152.163.101.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also doing it but has good edits coming from the IP also so I am hesitant to block. JoshuaZ 04:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It does, however, come back as a proxy and is in the same IP range as the one I note above. RadioKirk talk to me 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an AOL proxy, I doubt it's an open proxy - it's probably just AOL being a bad ISP and not issuing separate IP addresses to every user when they sign on, and using some kind of NAT. Which makes it impossible to block individual AOL users, even for short periods. Someone should contact AOL about it, I guess... --Tango 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, hence the 24h block rather than indefinite. RadioKirk talk to me 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been a problem for a very long time, and AOL don't look any closer to solving that problem than they were years ago. Unfortunately, a lot of good editors and administrators also come in through AOL, so long blocks to AOL IPs also have a fair bit of collateral damage. I never block for more than 15 minutes, though some folks block for a little longer. It's a pity, because some AOL vandals know full well the potential for collateral damage and are laughing at us. One AOL vandal I remember removed a test3 or test4 warning with an edit summary like "Ah, another n00b admin. Enjoy your collateral damage". I blocked that one for 15 minutes --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to block only non-logged in AOL users? --Tango 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not yet, but it's being planned - see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal. Regards, MartinRe 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Osbus's RFA was full of sock voting and impersonation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to ask, but why don't we use the method Wiktionary uses. Apparently requiring an https certificate for an AOL user forces the unique IP address to be exposed. That would allow individual blocking, etc. - Taxman Talk 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the server load would be too high for Wikipedia. It only works for Wiktionary because they have far less users. Https puts a much bigger strain on the servers than normal. Nice idea though. Petros471 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We just installed 40 new apaches. Is the extra load really that much? - Taxman Talk 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel this is a great idea. Tackling this long-standing problem for some extra server-load isn't a bad deal. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to see hard data on this. Won't the reduced load due to AOL IP vandals and the associated rollback / talk page edits make up for this? (assuming https is used only for submitting edits, not normal browsing). Kusma (討論) 16:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm no server admin expert, I just heard the above reason given quite a few times when others have asked (and no I can't remember where they asked...). You could try WP:VP/T, which looks like a more suitable place for this question. Petros471 16:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another RFA semiprotected. can we just put a ban on the offending ranges, and get users to complain to AOL or something? This isn't an RFA-only problem now, it's spread to AFD. NSLE (T+C) at 04:06 UTC (2006-06-08)

I still like the https idea. Has anybody talked to a dev about it? I tried to ask Rob Church but he wouldn't talk to me. --Rory096 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected. (Archive 62)

Why can't I edit?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scarbor

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bling-chav (2nd time) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.51.100 (talk • contribs) .

Why would an IP user want to edit the base RfA page?Why do you - as an IP user - wish to edit this page? --mboverload@ 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps to correct a typo, or grammatical error. Please assume good faith. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there was additional trolling attached to this IP's edit, which mboverload removed before he added the unsigned template. Trolling from some IPs hurts the legitimate efforts of other IPs. NoSeptember 14:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the response could have been neutral and factual, instead of accusatory. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume that the reply was made with an accusatory tone. It can be read as a neutral question probing for the IP's motive, and we should AGF that it was. NoSeptember 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
All I asked was why an IP user would wish to edit a page like Request for adminship. I should have said: Why do you - as an IP user - wish to edit this page? Your point is valid Nae'blis, even though I may disagree with your interpretation. --mboverload@ 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, hope I didn't come off as overly bitchy. If it was me, I might have explained briefly the "technical" reasons they can't edit, and then asked what they wanted to change. But looking closer at the other edits NoSeptember mentions, I can see why you might have been suspicious of that particular IP (I came back here to say that they'd made good edits elsewhere, then realized that even the one I thought wasn't vandalism from 7/10, got reverted by another user as factually incorrect). Meh. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Same reason anyone edits RFA. I do vaguely recall "anyone can edit" as a rule someplace? Kim Bruning 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If you go back to the diff link by anon, s/he is actually referring to two closed RFAs. --WinHunter (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed them because I wasn't quite sure why he inluded them when it says right there on them to not modify it and why, and he's asking why he cant. --mboverload@ 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Most people edit RFA either to add their nom (IPs can't be admins, so it can't be that) or to remove noms (IPs can't be buros, so it can't be that). "Anyone can edit" is about the encyclopedia, not the behind the scenes stuff. There is no need for an IP to be able to edit the base RFA page, which is why it's semi-protected. Asking why he wanted to edit it was a perfectly legitimate question. --Tango 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What? "Anyone can edit" is about being a Wiki, which prefix turns up on every page I ever visited round here. Suggesting that we have ever had a philosophy of "most people can't edit because they don't have an account" in Wikipedia space is news to me. -Splash - tk 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place to argue about protection policy. What I meant was that all main space pages should be unprotected unless there is a specific reason to protect them (eg. vandalism), because it's important that everyone can edit the encyclopedia. Wikipedia space pages can be protected as long as there isn't a reason for people to need to edit them, and in this case, there is no reason for IP users to edit this page. --Tango 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't find a location where anyone has advocated such an interpretation of the guidelines. Perhaps I missed it. Could you explain where this has been stated? Kim Bruning 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen it in writing anywhere, but the simple fact that RFA is semi-protected would seem to suggest such an interpretation. I don't recall large amounts of vandalism here, so what reason is there to protect? The only reason I can see is that there isn't a reason not the protect. --Tango 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
In general, page protection is considered harmful. Unless someone supplies a good reason, we can probably unprotect it. Kim Bruning 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This is our returning Bling-chav/RfA troll who's latest incarnation I blocked this morning (WP:ANI). Let's not reward him by obsessing over his latest trolling. NoSeptember 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. --WinHunter (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship semiprotected? (Archive 62)

I don't really see a reason for that right now. The default and preference is not to protect, right? Has that changed?

I haven't found any wording about that anyplace. I take it we can unprotect then?

Kim Bruning 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I am personally in favour of (semi-)protecting, but since I have yet to see a consensus to protect, I decided to be bold and unprotected the article from editing. Protecting this page from being moved makes sense, though. I've seen a couple of times when this page was moved to various notes of profanity, and there's no need for this page to be moved anywhere for now. What do y'all think about the move-protection? I don't care if we remove all protection, but I think the move protection at least makes sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move protection seems good (I'm assuming on how this works, of course), as any changes to where this is located will come after considerable community deliberation and consensus. Semiprotection may be a good way to prevent drive-by vandalism and snowball's-chance RfAs for raw newbie users/sockpuppets, but it's worth a try at being unprotected. The "pages that stand a risk if they're left unprotected" seems to mainly encompass templates, which may not be watchlisted with the same frequency as the articles they're transcluded in. Obviously that's not the same situation as here. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no reason not to protect, so why risk the possibility of preventable vandalism? --Tango 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    The default is actually to not protect unless there's a strong overriding reason. Hence. Kim Bruning 10:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My issue at the time, and I forgot I even protected it since it was so long ago, was that moves were uneccessary and occasionally maliciously done, and IPs and very new users would randomly put of misformed RfA's either as some sort of test/joke/trolling. This page consist of A)two template inclusions that have the procedure text, located on the template pages, and B)the list of transluded RfAs. A new user should never be added/removing any, so there really is nothing to edit here. I suppose someone could always spend the time to revert that stuff, but whatever, I don't care much as long as it is move protected.Voice-of-All 01:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The only problem is when when IP's want to leave comments (a very rare case). Is there some way that the entire page be sprotected except for the comments section? --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a problem because all nominations are on subpages that are not protected. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm all in favour of defaulting to no protection (especially in article space, to a lesser degree in Wikipedia namespace), unless there is a good reason. In this case, I think there is a good reason to semi-protect. As has been pointed out above, I can't see any reason for an IP to edit the main RFA page (as opposed to the subpages), as only registered users can be nominated and sprotecting prevents invalid nominations and vandalism. If people can come up with any good reasons as to why IPs might need to edit the main RFA page then I'd be quite happy to say keep it unprotected unless there was a particular attack of vandalism (same as articles), otherwise I see no reason why it can't just be semi-permanently sprotected. Petros471 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's because you first made a box, and then put your brain inside it (thinking inside the box of your own making ;-) ). Just because can't quite see it doesn't mean it hasn't always been there. ;-) I can name 5 different reasons off the top of my head. Can you? (it's a challenge!)
    Slightly offtopic... : Once upon a time it was my dream to make it to admin status without once logging in, just to spite RickK. (this was certainly possible at the time, I didn't make it because I started editing from univeristy, and all the different IPs got confusing). I'm sorry to see that RickKs ideas have caught on more than mine anyway, despite the fact that he's even left wikipedia! Kim Bruning 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    I like challenges (though I admit I'm not the best at out-of-the-box thinking, self imposed or otherwise :) Well before posting the above I got as far as thinking 1) Correcting typo's in the small amount of text that is on that page. On thinking further I've got to 2) Adding inter-wiki language links. I also had thought about anons nominating someone else, but that doesn't count as nominations have to be made by a user (both practically in creating a new page and in policy "Any user in good standing may nominate any user." What are your 5 then? Petros471 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Request semi-protection for an RfA (Archive 63)

Hi. Would someone semi-protect Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grendelkhan? It's been vandalised twice three times in the past few hours by an imposter forging a vote - first from a new imposter account,[1] then as an IP,[2], and again as a different IP.[3] In this circumstance, I feel a semi-protection will adequately prevent future disruption to this RfA. I'd do it myself, but as the nominator in this case feel it would present a conflict of interest. After all, I'm too involved to be sure I'm not blowing this out of proportion. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

done,.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection request (Archive 64)

Some IP editors have been creating a lot of trouble in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eluchil404. A semi-prot would help. Tintin (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've also struck the faked Supports, rather than deleted them, as its useful to see a record of this sort of attack. Gwernol 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Random question (Archive 64)

Who may vote: Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, including the nominator. Who may not vote: Editors who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"). Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry. Voting on one's own nomination is not allowed and will not be counted by the closing bureaucrat.

Shouldn't RfAs be sprotected, then? — Deckiller 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe anons and new users are allowed to participate in the discussion even if they can't !vote. -- Steel 00:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No, anons may not participate, but new users can, although their recommendations "may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud..." (emphasis mine). Semi-protecting by default would run counter to this since it would bar both anon IPs and new users. It might be worth discussing changing that, but until we have, semi-protecttion should not be applied by default. Gwernol 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to encourage at least somewhat established editors, and not new users. I mean, let's face it. This is a request for adminship; community consensus and all. New users do not understand the concepts and the necessities (and, if they do, then they are sockpuppets). It's obvious that most cases of this are bad faith; a large enough of a majority to afford changing this rule to conform to sprotect. But that's a discussion for a different heading :) — Deckiller 00:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Surely if the anon raises some valuable points (like a diff to where the candidate moved a page to "... on wheels"), you can't ask people to ignore that on the basis that it was an anon who brought it up? -- Steel 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous users, like everyone else, are allowed to comment in the appropriate section; for this reason sprotect is not an option. Rje 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving all these issues apart, semi-protection is not done because it is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Semi-protection is only done to stop further damages to any page because of repetetive vandalism/trolling. It is a "last resort", not a pre-emptive measure. See the policy page for details. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected? (Archive 68)

Why is this protected...? Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By "this" I assume you mean the RfA page itself? I believe because it has been the target of considerable IP vandalism whenever it has been unprotected. Gwernol 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The RfA page has actually been the target of minimal vandalism; those supporting protection of this page tend to argue that anonymous users just don't need to edit it. It was protected for two weeks in February, another two weeks in April, the month of June, and then just protected again last week on the basis of preventing 'fake RfA additions'. See the protection log. ~ PseudoSudo 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In addition the vandalism problems, there is also no disadvantage to it. There is no reason why an IP or a 3-day old username would need to edit the main RfA page; everything except a few sentences is split off into (unprotected) subpages and it is not a problem that any minor edit to those few sentences would need to wait a few hours for an "established" user to add them (and for major ones they need discussion here first anyway). While the level of vandalism here would not warrant any longer-term protection of an article, this is not an article and in a way it is not even a policy or process page: it is a skeleton that links other, editable pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your claim of anonymous users having 'no reason' to edit the page is not valid. First of all, active anonymous users are as entitled to submit nominations as any other user with a registered account is; please challenge me on that point if you don't buy it. Second of all, personally I've never written up a nom but yet have still edited this page a half-dozen times, fixing errors and de-listing other noms for various reasons; there's routine maintenance work on this page to be done that can be performed by anyone who wants to. We are a wiki that anyone can edit. ~ PseudoSudo 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
idealy anyone can edit. in practice so far that i have seen, admins step in and revert edits they dont like instead of attempting to fix or flag for someone else to68.161.183.243 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The nominated candidate can add their own RfA nomination to the main page, they have to accept the nomination and answer the questions anyway and it shouldn't be added before they agree. Anonymous users shouldn't be de-listing RfAs and it doesn't save any effort, someone would have to check that the de-listing was proper anyway, and it is not a problem if a malformed RfA is on the page for a few minutes or even hours. What are the errors and routine maintenance work you are talking about? I clicked on 25 random diffs, all of them were users adding their own nominations, well-established users removing bad-faith and malformed nominations (none of which would it have been appropriate for an anon to remove), and bureaucrats closing RfAs. The only two IP edits in that selection were one adding an RfA page that didn't exist, and another blanking the page. Note that if you mean fixing up something in the "About RfA" header, that is a separate, unprotected subpage. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In this section, I'd be surprised to see many anons wanting to participate. There is no reason not to make an account if you wish to do this. Michael 00:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User:Useight/RFA_Subjects/Protecting_the_page"