Wookieepedia:Requests for protection archive

• Yeah that's not happening. We're not going to completely ban all IPs just because some of them vandalise the site. Many IPs are extremely valuable contributors, and indeed many regular users are vandals. If we did as you suggest, vandals would simply create an account to edit from, thus achieving nothing. 18:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order—users have been posting leaks in the appearances of the game. Despite launching tomorrow, I recommend that a level of protection for a brief period of time is in order until when the game launches.--Vitus Infinitus 14:29, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

Iridonian. Again, the recent History seems to speak for itself. People can't seem to understand what a misspelling is. Trak Nar 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Might also want to consider this unresolved debate regarding the spelling on the GAN page. —Master Jonathan 03:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Darth Tenebrous. History speaks for itself. Mauser 07:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Protected like the taste of Miller Lite. Havac 07:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can Crix Madine be semi protected? some anon(s) keep changing it into Bad Haircut something over the last few days and it's starting to become a silly edit war. 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jedi Exile - This is getting way out of hand just banning new or unregistered users isn't doing much to solve the vandalism problem. Save the trouble and just shield it - from all users. -- 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Aquatic Assault Armored Transport—User:VT-16 continues to add the unsourced abbreviation "AA-AT" to the article. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Anakin Skywalker it is getting out of hand how many edits there is on this one article. Darth Raul
• Some one deleted my image and used on their user page!--mas1@ 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Revan. Just look at the edit history. 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Jaina Solo - Was protected until a week ago and has been hit by an IP vandal repeatedly today. At least semi-protect. Thanks. -Fnlayson 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Force Destruction has been getting a few repeated un-sourced things added. Perhaps a cool-down would be possible? Din's Fire 997 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars). A lot of questionable anon edits. Chack Jadson 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Capes. Do not let it be created please and please protect the page from its creation because Capes is a huge spam page and there is no capes in Star Wars.(Eagle Eye 370 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Why and what are you saying? You to don't want the page to be created?(Eagle Eye 370 03:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

I would like to request that the protection level be lowered from full to semi or super-semi for:

• Template:DB — history says "protected due to being high risk template" in 2006, though no evidence of risk was provided and not a single instance of vandalism had occurred prior. It was briefly lowered and raised again, without explanation, in 2008.
• Template:W — history shows this was semi-protected in 2008, then bumped to full protection in 2009 based on a single incident in the intervening seven months (by a user who is now banned). Super-semi would be a reasonable level for this one.

The notes above attempt to document that semi- or super-semi-protection would be sufficient to block the types of vandalism these templates have experienced. (I'd actually be very surprised if super-semi-protected pages were ever vandalized—anyone who creates an account just for vandalism will be blocked before they get to 150 edits, and anyone who's stuck around long enough to make that many good-faith edits probably isn't doing it just to create a platform from which to vandalize later.)

More philosophically, letting long-established users edit pages such as these is a good way to indicate trust in them, strengthening the community. It's an acknowledgement that a wiki isi a collaborative platform, and a wide range of people have positive contributions to make. Even minor cosmetic changes improve the wiki, and that burden needn't be on a small group of admins alone.

For things that aren't the Main Page or policy pages or such, it seems easier for an admin to adjust the protection level and allow others to fix things, rather than having to fix everything themselves. It also saves a step, since otherwise a regular user must describe the change to an admin rather than just making it directly. Many hands, light work, and all that rot.

Thanks for considering this. Asithol (talk) 05:37, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

• I'm declining this request at this time not because I don't trust the userbase, but because there is no need to edit the templates in question at this time. This is especially the case with {{W}}—it was officially approved at a Mofference and any changes would need to go through a community discussion. Furthermore, due to caching, vandalism to widely transcluded templates can be visible long after the edits have been reverted. Should there arise a need to edit either template, I'll gladly lower the protection levels. Cheers, 1358(Talk) 21:39, July 17, 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request that the protection level be lowered from full to semi for:

• Wookieepedia:Jedi Exile — it is unclear from the history why this is full-protected: there has only ever been one vandal, in 2007, who is now blocked.
• Template:Hnn — history says "protected due to being high risk template" in 2006, though no evidence of risk was provided and not a single instance of vandalism had occurred prior.
• Template:DB — ditto everything in the previous bullet point; in addition, it was briefly lowered and raised again, without explanation, in 2008.
• Template:W — history shows this was semi-protected in 2008, then bumped to full protection in 2009 based on a single incident in the intervening seven months (by a user who is now banned). Super-semi would be a reasonable level for this one.

Thanks for considering this. Asithol (talk) 00:20, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

Canon: Needs to be updated for recent developments. Also, a permanent full protection violates the Wookieepedia:Protection policy. Therefor, please reduce protection level to semiprotected. Gulomi Jomesh (talk) 22:32, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

• Due to the excessive amount of vandalism, and the subject's importance, the article will remain fully protected. If the article requires updating, then please use its talk page. JangFett 22:37, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I see no reason for it to be protected now, and I like your idea. Before you change it, however, I'd recommend talking to a couple others just to get their take on it if you haven't already. I think it will be approved though. At any rate, it's now unprotected. Chack Jadson 14:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Big list of articles whose protection should be reviewed. Most either involve edit wars which have long since finished or problematic users who should be long gone by now.