This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hey man im josh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. Please lower the protection level on Mark Carney. I can't believe I'm seeing this. Even Justin Trudeau's page did not have this level. More people need access to it because they will notice omissions/facts, or, remember a specific incident, want to add as history is being made...This seems kind of 'elitist' and will not help Mark Carney's image. It seems suspicious and I hope someone on his PR team did not request it. Are you on it? This is very strange. Another 'protector' is trying to get his wife's page removed. JayElk33 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
@JayElk33: I fail to see how the current protection (no such thing as 'super protection') is elitist. Carney's image is not affected by the protection level of his Wikipedia page. Any person or site that argues as such should probably be avoided.
As for alleged factual errors, you're more than welcome to make requests on the talk page. The level was set based on many users who were registered making unsourced changes and edit warring. Additionally, it doesn't really matter what protection another page had/has. What matters is protecting a page from harm. There's nothing stopping productive changes from being made.
Additionally, let me tell you that you need to assume good faith. It's entirely inappropriate to accuse me of being in on some weird PR campaign. A number of users actually requested the protection.
Lastly, his wife's page and any discussions surrounding it are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about the protection level of the article.
You have not given a good reason to lose the protection, whereas I saw edits that gave me good reason to make it this level, and I believe there's a good reason to keep it this level for a short while longer. I will not be lowering the protection level of the page. In the future, when you make requests of folks, consider not levying baseless accusations at them. That type of rhetoric actually reinforces the idea the article should be protected when such conspiracy theories are about. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend you and I did not think you would take it so personally. I thought wikipedia was 'open' and more 'free' and its main objective was to allow anyone to add facts they find. More heads are better than a few. I was completely shocked to see this protection as I have never seen it. I still believe this move seems unusually restrictive, unfair and elitist. JayElk33 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@JayElk33: We absolutely do support anybody and everybody improving Wikipedia, it's a core concept that helps make Wikipedia what it is. Unfortunately, people of certain high profiles, or who are in the news for various reasons, end up having to have their articles protected to prevent abuse or unsourced information from being repeatedly added. It's not that we want to stop people from editing the articles, but we want to protect them from said disruption. That's why we have WP:Edit requests. Those are typically what are made by being on a talk page of a protected article and, when a source and explanation is provided, they're typically responded to quite fast by regular patrollers of such requests (the requests enter a queue that those interested in answering them can monitor).
So, in short, we need to strike the right balance between stopping disruption and allowing open collaboration and contributions. Sometimes that means we protect an article. I don't like it, wish we never had to, but that's life. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
