Talk:Whitey (slang)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 26 September 2014 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page should be protected

Six days ago, Mako001 requested pending changes protection for this page. CambridgeBayWeather rejected the request with the rationale that there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection". I had seen neither the request nor the rejection and two days later requested semi-protection for the page, which was also rejected by CambridgeBayWeather giving the same rationale.

I don't mean to attack CambridgeBayWeather in any way. Maybe CBW will reconsider after having another look at the edit history of this page. I think it's obvious that letting anonymous and new accounts edit this page doesn't add any value to Wikipedia. Instead, it's just a waste of time for Wikipedia volunteers.

I'd say the vandalism done to the article meets all criteria listed in Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection#Criteria for semi-protection – except that there's the sentence "there are no explicit rules that determine the level of vandalism that is necessary to trigger semi-protection". I guess that's what CBW's rejection rationale refers to. Maybe an average rate of one case of vandalism each week doesn't meet the threshold.

Anyway – I think the page should be protected, but I guess it won't be, because Wikipedia's rules are too lenient – we are too nice to vandals, and we make editors waste their time. Well, I won't spend my time on cleaning up this article anymore. (Which isn't much of a "threat" – I haven't touched the page in a year...) That's all. I just wanted to vent my (relatively minor) frustration. Happy editing, everyone! Including the ones who will keep cleaning up this page. Thanks for your time! — Chrisahn (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there's nowhere near enough vandalism. You need several edits a day to consider protection. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: I had checked Wikipedia:Protection policy, but I didn't find anything there either that clearly specifies how much vandalism is "enough". For pending changes protection, the relevant criterion is described as "persistent vandalism" and "infrequently edited pages with high levels of vandalism". This article is certainly "infrequently edited". Roughly 95% to 98% of the edits in the last three years are vandalism (and cleanup of vandalism). I'd say that should qualify as "persistent vandalism" and "high levels of vandalism". I don't see a good reason to not even activate pending changes protection. Having to clean up the persistent vandalism just wastes our time. How does that make Wikipedia better? — Chrisahn (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisahn @CambridgeBayWeather: I don't think that semi-protection would be appropriate. Some admins do individually set specific limits, with some saying that 10 reverted edits a day is needed for semi-protection to be appropriate for dealing with ordinary disruption or vandalism^[1]. Others would have different criteria. I thought PC protection might be worthwhile, but if CambridgeBayWeather disagrees, that is fine by me, and I trust that they have made the right call. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ I think it was Melecie or Valereee who pointed me to an essay or similar that said that, but I don't recall where it was.

[1] I think it was Melecie or Valereee who pointed me to an essay or similar that said that, but I don't recall where it was.

[1]