Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 9

Semi-Protection and 4-day blocks

The 4-day block on new accounts needs to be mentioned in the semi-protection section. Ywaz (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically it the limit is not just 4 days, it is for autoconfirmed accounts. That said, perhaps the article could give some clarification. Plasticup ^T/C 23:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Royalguard11 reverted my edit, saying that it was neither fair nor neutral. I have asked him to weigh in here were we can work on some alternate wording. The two qualifications for autoconfirmation are time (i.e. newness) and edit count (i.e. experience), so I quite like my version, but of course suggestions are welcome. Plasticup ^T/C 22:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Royalguard. The problem is not with the facts, which are true, but with the way they are presented. Yes, "inexperienced" is a vague way of phrasing the "less than ten edits" parameter, but it also has unwanted connotations of n00b-ism and haves/have-nots. Given that the section links to WP:UAL where the criteria are very clearly spelled out (and remember that they are not as simple as 4days/10edits), I don't see the need to spell out the criteria here. At the least, a more objective wording is required. Happy‑melon 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose "inexperienced" has a negative connotation. I was going for vague language because (as you said) the 4 days/10 edit limit is not true in all cases. Perhaps if we just said "new accounts which are not autoconfirmed". That is simple enough and captures the spirit of autoconfirmation, while the link provides the details. Plasticup ^T/C 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Even that is not true in all cases - edits from TOR nodes can be non-autoconfirmed after 90 days; I wouldn't call that new. If you're absolutely determined to put something in, "new accounts" is the least inaccurate, but again, why do we need to spell out the criteria here when they are explained in detail one link away? Happy‑melon 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the necessity, 99% of readers will not click the link and many will leave having know idea which accounts cannot edit semi-protected articles. Accounts from Tor networks account for an extreme minority of internet users, and the detailed information of their treatment can (as you said) be accessed by a single click. And the phrase "new accounts" still implies that there is a time-related factor in the approval process. It is not a perfect description, but it really does get the jist of it. Plasticup ^T/C 03:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If 99% of our readers don't understand the whole "more information about particular topics can be found by clicking on the little blue words" idea, then we really are failing miserably in our goal of enlightening the world! Happy‑melon 07:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just thought it had a bad connotation. This actually was the balance I was trying to strike on the new-ish autoconfirmied level: somewhere between trying to make it harder for sock vandals and trying not to discourage good faith edits. "Inexperienced" could be easily taken as "we don't want your edits" or "you can't join our club". I think if they got here, they can find the full definition. -Royalguard11(T) 17:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Permanently semi-protecting redirects

Has it ever been discussed to have all redirects permanently semi-protected? Redirects seem to be easily overlooked on most users' watchlists (at least IMO). I was thinking about it, and I could not see many reasons why an IP or SPA would need to mess with redirects, other than subtle vandalism. If there is a legitimate reason for an unregistered user to change a redirect, there is always {{editprotect}}. As far as logistics, maybe a bot (with tools) could do it. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support that idea. Earlier today I was dealing with vandalism of cash gifting and cash gifting program, which should redirect to pyramid scheme, but people have been editing them to promote them as legal and legitimate. Redirect pages are what they are because they are not expected to ever have any content, either because they contain spelling mistakes, are alternate names for the same subject, or otherwise duplicate the content of the page they redirect to. By their very nature, the only reason to edit to a redirect page is to vandalize it. Redirect pages should be at least semi-protected by default. DOSGuy (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that protection is not to be used as a preemptive solution. -Royalguard11(T) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but why enforce a bad rule? The purpose of rules is to benefit the community. A good rule is based on logic; if a rule isn't logical, it must be changed! What is the logical thing to do in this situation? Since, in all likelihood, any edit to a redirect page is going to be vandalism, it's logical to make an assumption of vandalism and semi-protect redirect pages by default. It wouldn't prevent established users from making changes, and unregistered users can always request an edit. This is one situation where it's logical to preemptively protect a page for the benefit of Wikipedia. DOSGuy (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject we change dozens of redirects every month. I have seen several redirect pages turned into disambiguation pages by IP editors, and their valuable contributions would have been prevented by this proposal. Plasticup ^T/C 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My own observation has been that edits of that nature by IP addresses are often experienced Wikipedians who are working at a different computer, or otherwise not logged in. A person has to be quite familiar with Wikipedia to know what a disambiguation page is and how to make one. DOSGuy (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also Wikipedia guideline to Assume Good Faith. The no preemptive rules has been around for several years now, so most in the community think it is logical. Taken to to the extreme, allowing preemptive protection would end up protecting the entire encyclopedia! Just because of "possible vandalism". I think people need to remember it's a Wiki. This is going to happen. If there were to be any policy change on this scale, it would need to have a large community backing. -Royalguard11(T) 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely believe in assuming good faith when it comes to articles. Redirect pages aren't articles. Many redirect pages redirect spelling mistakes, so there's clearly no chance of them ever becoming articles. Oddly enough, the nature of redirect pages makes it reasonable to assume bad faith in any edit. As far as your "taking it to the extreme" argument, this isn't a good example of a slippery slope. If I was talking about preemptively protecting articles, then you could argue a slippery slope. "Well, if we can preemptively protect Barack Obama, why can't be preemptively protect [name of page] too?" That's fair, right? It's not, however, reasonable to imply a slippery slope when someone suggests protecting a redirect page. A redirect page is not an article. It exists only to redirect; it has no content and never will. Even if the redirect page needs to redirect somewhere else someday, or in the unlikely event that it someday becomes an article, any knowledgeable Wikipedian can go ahead and do so. Semi-protection only protects the redirect pages from anonymous attacks. Since that is the only kind of edit such pages are ever likely to see, it's only logical to take a minimal precaution and semi-protect them. Since it's the logical thing to do, I'm not worried about finding broad support from the community. DOSGuy (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if 95% of IP edits to redirects are vandalism you would still be excluding many many good edits. Vandalism is easily fixed, but when you prevent an editor's contribution it is lost forever. Plasticup ^T/C 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think redirects need to be as free to change as the rest of the encyclopedia. If there is a real problem with one then protect it, but I don't think we should just go and protect them all. One of the first things I did here was fix a broken redirect, and that was well before I was autoconfirmed. Redirects are not something new users do not get, there are clear instructions on how to do redirects and a button for them too. Lets keep it so we can work without admins unlocking doors for us, unless that door really does need to be locked. Chillum 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and the 'slippery slope' argument apply wiki-wide, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The protection policy is quite clear: we do not protect mainspace pages preemptively; it's as simple as that. While of course the overpowering consensus in favour of that policy could have changed, I can see no evidence for such a shift. Happy‑melon 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen a change on this issue either. We've also seen 2 examples from users here where freely editable redirects were directly helpful to the encyclopedia and I bet there are many more. I admit, I've seen some vandalism and changing of redirects, but it hasn't been too bad. You just protect it after it's fixed, it's not that hard. I've never seen anything to justify protecting all redirects. -Royalguard11(T) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of policy

I have a strong concern about a sudden use of preemptive full protection of highly trafficked articles, and propose that new wording to be added to te policy to alert new admins and less experienced Wikipedians that the protection policy cannot be applied as a preemptive measure.

Relevant discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Should_the_election_bios_stay_full_protected_through_the_election
• Talk:Barack_Obama#Where_is_the_vandalism.3F
• Talk:Joe_Biden#Vandalism.3F_I_don.27t_think_so
• Talk:John_McCain#Where_is_the_vandalism.3F
• Talk:Sarah_Palin#Where_is_the_vandalism.3F

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tough cases make bad law. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but there is a misperception out there and there is no harm in clarifying the fact that protection cannot be applied preemptively. No Bush doctrine in WP, sorry.  :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the BLP "special enforcement" provision can be used in that way, for better or worse. In the recent Sarah Palin protection incident, arguments were made by each side for and against protection similar to the current discussion on presidential articles. I opposed protection there, on the basis that there was no policy-based consensus to protect the articles. But Arbcom discounted that argument, and affirmed that the arguments in favor of protection there (which are, essentially, the same as arguments in favor of protection now) were strong enough for the BLP special sanctions to be invoked. I interpret this to mean that the overall consensus has moved away from my own anti-protection viewpoint, towards more frequent use of full protection for biographies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would make sense to apply protection preemeptively in rare cases like these. We already do it with high-use templates - why not for important articles? We shouldn't be guided by doctrine here, but by practicality. OK, if we allow semi-protection, I suppose that ought to be sufficient.--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I think it's misleading to leave out all mention of the BLP policy in your new text. The standards for protecting BLP articles are not the same as the standards for protecting other articles. You were one of the parties in the Sarah Palin protection case, where arbcom reinforced that fact, so I'm certain you're aware of this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Under the provisions of WP:IAR, consensus on a decision can in fact override accepted policy in special situations (I believe that the American Presidential Election would qualify as a special situation). ArbCom has also established special rules regarding BLP articles. Also, since there is an ongoing discussion of this issue at ANI, the discussion should all take place there and not fork to here. If you have concerns please discuss them and have them addressed at ANI. -Royalguard11(T) 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording in semi-protection

This section says: "Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), or from accounts that are not autoconfirmed. "

How does it decide which to enforce? Random? Decides one day we're preventing anonymous users and the next we're preventing non-autoconfirmed users? Stipulated by the person protecting the article?

Or is this language incorrect and it prevents edits from anon and nonautoconfirmed users while the article is protected? If so, why is the 'or' there? That would imply the varying restricted classes are exclusive of one another at a given time which really doesn't make any sense as policy (if your going to restrict nonautoconfirmed users wouldn't you retric anons too? What is the utility in failing to do that?).

Perhaps someone should explain how the software decides which class to restrict (random? user-specified at protection institution?) or should be changed to indicate it prevents both for the duration of the protection (change or to and). -Δζ (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should say and. In typical natural language English, people often switch ands and ors like that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's both at the same time. It was probably written as "semiprotection is used to restrict anon users or non-autoconfirmed accounts" to tell admins when to use it, but it does both indiscriminately. -Royalguard11(T) 19:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying and changing the wording. I think that section should be accurate , which it appears to be, now, since it restricts one of the principles wikipedia was founded upon.--Δζ (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed revisions as an alternative to full protection

See a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Confirmed_revisions where it is proposed to use a system of flagged revisions as an alternative to full protection during edit wars and disputes. Cenarium ^Talk 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

lifting long-term semi-protection of featured articles

I'd like to request the attention and participation of those interested in this discussion over lifting long-term semi-protection of featured articles. Shiva (Visnu) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting user talk pages

After this discussion on WP:AN, I have add this to the semi-protection section:

User talk pages may be semi-protected only if they are consistently targeted for vandalism, and only if an unprotected subpage is available (and watched) for IP editors who legitimately need to contact the editor in question."

This merely formalizes what is apparently an already-existing practice. If you read the discussion over there, you will see some examples where this is clearly necessary.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive creation protection

We have enshrined language stating "Administrators should not use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events." I see good reason for this as a general rule of thumb, but I think pre-emptive protection for short time periods may be a great drama and work reducer for certain types of clear cut cases. I delete many A7s of the stripe "John Doe is a 13 year old who likes to ride his skateboard and has a dog named Max!" There is no possibility that by protecting this before recreation for 24 hours we will be cutting off a legitimate article by the poster, and the possibility that coincidentally, an attempt to create an article by the same title about a notable person by a third party will be made during the short time span of protection is vanishingly small.

It plays out like this, some significant percentage of these type of articles are recreated, a newpages patroller needs to visit and tag, warn the user, and then CAT:CSD is expanded by that article, meaning that the same or a new admin must visit the recreated page. This may rinse and repeat a few times before salting occurs. Meanwhile the creator sometimes causes drama far afield because they keep getting these in-their-face warnings (vandalism to the taggers user/talk page for example). And not infrequently, instead of being salted, the creator gets escalating warnings until they are blocked, when salting would have nipped it all in the bud. Meanwhile, the vast majority of these editors who persist in recreation are never heard from again (they do not come back after the 24 hour protection to try again).

I was thinking of just starting to do this, but brought this here on the possibility there is some other good concern that is behind the prohibition. Note again, that we are only speaking of blatant cases.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think immediate no-warning blocks on creators of such articles (along with other vandals and blatantly unconstructive contributors) would be more beneficial. The chances of that person making any positive contribution to WP over the next few hours or days are at least as vanishingly small as the chances of the conincidence you refer to.--Kotniski (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks or the response Kotniski. Blocking new users in this manner would fly in the face of multiple explicit and tacit policies that have long-standing consensus and with which I agree. We only block immediately and without prior warning for extreme bad faith contributions (for example, vicious attack pages on living people). The example new page I posted about in the OP is not even vandalism, though it may be converted to vandalism if it is reposted after warnings. Carpet bombing new users with blocks isn't the answer:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Do you mean you find an A7 page, speedy it, then it comes back later? -Royalguard11(T) 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that is the way of it. It is a cycle that plays out over and over as any admin who does a lot of CAT:CSD patrol can tell you. An article is tagged for speedy deletion-->creator warned-->article deleted-->recreated-->tagged and warned again-->recreated-->tagged and warned again-->recreated and so on, until, somewhere along the way, one of a number of things happens: the creator gives up, the article slips through the cracks, the user is blocked, or the article is salted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So can you explain why you want the "article is salted" option to be moved forward, but not the "user is blocked" option? The two changes seem to me to be more or less equivalent in terms of the degree to which they amend current policy. If we can do one, we can do the other (do both, as far as I'm concerned). --Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking a user is in no way equivalent to protecting an article against creation and there certainly isn't an equivalency with respect to the extent they amend policy. The issue I am addressing is, as far as I can tell, one of first impression, directed at one prohibitive line in policy which has no explanation about a subject (creation protection) that wasn't even available until earlier this year. When and when not to block users, by contrast, besides being a divergent subject, is extremely well-defined, long-discussed and there is overwhelming consensus against the actions you proposed above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for my information, then, since you said you agreed with this consensus, could you explain the reasons for it? I've always found it weird that WP allows itself to be trolled and disrupted to the extent it does; I guessed it was a hangover from some past time when we were more desperate for contributors and had no great problem with vandals. (I'm not opposing your proposal about salting, by the way, just trying to understand why we don't adopt what to me is an equally logical solution.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not totally in the other camp. I hear you. We do have too much leniency for blatant vandalism. A person who replaces the content of an article with fuck doesn't need four warnings before being blocked. But vandalism is very much about intent. That person replacing content with expletives, naughty bits, adding intentionally false information, etc., has malicious intent; we know what they're about immediately. Even some of them reform and become valuable contributors though that's rare. But the person I posted about in the OP hasn't shown us they are a vandal at all (yet)—just (somehow) clueless of that this site is an encyclopedia and what that entails. Many of them can and do get the idea. And many of them are young and may become useful contributors when they grow up a bit if they aren't soured on the site. Blocking such users on sight would create a hostile atmosphere. However, stopping them from recreating an article on a clearly unsuitable topic by preemptively blocking the title stops them in their tracks without the need for any blocking, warnings, all the theatrics. And those who don't try to create the article again won't even know the article is protected against recreation because if they don't try to recreate, they won't get redirected to the screen which says they cannot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm don't remember the salting policy changing recently, but I would say that what you describe would qualify. What you describe isn't preemptive. Preemptive would be choosing a random page you think will get created and salting it. If a page is created, deleted, created, deleted, then it would probably qualify for salting at that point. I think after one would be a bit extreme unless it seems to be part of some pattern. I remember it being very common after 3, and you can apply it after 2 in most cases (I can't think of any exception at the moment though). In my opinion it means deleted any way, so it doesn't have to go through any process and CSD is enough. I know that's what I did.

So I'd say after 3 create-speedy deletes you have the green light to salt. 2 you can probably get away with too. 1 I would tread cautiously. I think you're just misunderstanding what "preemptive" means; it means choosing a title with no history and protecting. Anything with a history would not be preemptive. -Royalguard11(T) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Before about January of this year we didn't have the ability to protect redlinks. There was a software change which enabled such action. The section on creation protection thus didn't exist before then because the subject wasn't yet born (I actually was the first to add detail on the software change to the policy page). Sure, truly "preemptive" would be salting a title that never existed, deleted or otherwise. What I am using preemptive here to mean is preemptive against recreation In that sense, preemptive is exactly the right word. Anyway, forget whether the word is a misnomer here or not. The point is that the section states that we should only protect where there have been multiple recreations. But that grew out of a time when when we didn't have the ability to easily protect redlinks for short periods of time and when doing so left an article by the title cluttering the encyclopedia, which isn't the case with creation protection. You have echoed back the policy but not addressed the example I gave and why the policy should not be modified for such circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about what I did when there was no creation protection. I interpret "preemptive" to only apply to pages with no history at all (never been created, deleted, or anything). If preemptive meant anything else, it would forbid the very protection it's talking about. I'm guessing you mean the example at the top there, and I already gave a response. 1st time you just delete, second time you delete and salt (create-protect, whatever you want to call it). I don't believe that we should protect after just one creation because that encompasses every CSD article. We don't semiprotect every time an article gets a little vandalism. We don't create protect every A7/G1 page. If it's recreated, then it's a good idea to create protect. -Royalguard11(T) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No it does not encompass every CSD article. We are really talking past each other. I took pains to point out that the issue is about a specific subset of articles and only that specific subset which I gave an example of. The example article has no possibility of being recreated with better content that would address the reason for deletion, which we know by context. This would not encompass most A7s or even most G1s. An article that fails to state the subject's importance can be reposted with a better assertion of importance, sources, etc. Some G1s may be a half-formed test, written garbled but amenable to a repost with real content. In either case, it would a very bad idea to create protect these without multiple recreation. Referring to immediate protection of existing articles as an analogous action is even more off topic. This is specific to creation protection of an article created once that is patently improper and by its context, will not be rehabilited in a subsequent posting, and no one else will be trying to create an article by that name so collateral damage is not an issue. You say "1st time you just delete, second time you delete and salt." That isn't even the practice. Usually we wait longer before creation protecting. In any event, you're again echoing what you believe the practice is, without addressing in any way why it should not be varied under the particular circumstances presented.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No Protection

What is this segment for, seems pointless, also why the link to the word NO's disambig? Ironically this page is protected so I can't remove >_< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialwords (talk • contribs) 08:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've relocated this section from where it was incorrectly placed. To reply to your concern: the segment in question was the result of vandalism, which has now been reverted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been reverted. I still see it where semi-protection was previously. 75.158.140.239 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

New protection templates and categories

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#New_protection_templates_and_categories where I proposed to use new protection templates and categories. Cenarium (Talk) 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of talk pages

An administrator recently told me that admins should not protect the talk page of a user they have blocked. I would like to know if that is true or not. For instance, if a user has already posted two or more unblock requests which have been declined, can the blocking administrator then remove further unblock requests and protect the page to prevent abuse? I believe this should be possible because an administrator has the option to protect a user's talk page at the time they place a block, when circumstances warrant. Blocked users see a screen that tells them how to appeal a block via email. Access to their talk page is not necessary to request an appeal.

In any case, whatever the consensus may be, if there is some sort of restriction on protection, it should be stated clearly in the policy. Currently the policy does not include any such restriction. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems moot. Adminsitrators have the discretion to turn off the "tick" of "user may edit their own talk page" when blocking, so one could just reblock with that tick marked off, no protection necessary. Also, blocking a user does not amount to having a dispute with that user. I see no inherent conflict with this at all, and I can't see where any other admin could claim that it would be inappropriate. Disruption is disruption; if there is any conflict of interest in protecting the talk page, then said conflict could have only existed when the block was implemented. If the block was a good block, the protection should be an allowable protection... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description. What I objected to was Jehochman intercepting (i.e removing) a block appeal of one of his own blocks. If the appeal needs to be removed then that's fine but it should be left to an uninvolved admin. That's the whole point of appeals. Sarah 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My understanding is that users get two block appeals. Once those are rejected, further appeals are considered an abuse of process and anyone can remove them and protect the page to prevent disruption. I specifically invited the user to file appeals via email, which they did do. Carcharoth received such an appeal and communicated with me about it around Dec 14. I believe we should avoid excessive bureaucracy, and two block appeals (three actually) are quite enough I think. In any case, next time I'll leave the third unblock request in place to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking admin you shouldn't be the one reviewing unblock requests, but if they have been denied by two other admins then I'd say asking for more would be an abuse of process. If two other admins essentially endorse the block by denying unblock I don't think it matter who's closing future requests. As for protection of talk pages of blocked users, it's done all the time. Usually you protect the talk page so that it expires at the same time as the block. -Royalguard11(T) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case there were two unblock requests, one denied by MangoJuice, and one denied by Jayron32. I was the blocking admin. A third unblock request was posted. I removed it and protected the page, leaving a note explaining what I did and inviting the user to pursue further unblock requests via email (which they did do) or via the Arbcom (which I have now done). At the time it seemed like removing the third request and protecting the page was a straightforward application of policy that anybody could do, but since Sarah has expressed concerns, I have stated that I'll not remove any unblock requests in that situation again (unless a consensus develops that such removal is acceptable). Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. All I was looking for was a reasonable acknowledgment so I appreciate that and as far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved. It's true that a long time ago the unblock decline template said that users were only entitled to use the unblock template a limited number of times per block per year (two or three, I forget which now) but that was removed a long time ago (a year ago, possibly more) in favour of the more general current wording: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.". We changed it because the fixed limit thing was never supported by policy and I don't think it is now either. I don't think the appeal policy WP:APPEAL says anything about how many appeals a user can make and who may respond to the template in such cases, only more generally: "Requests for unblocks should be reviewed by administrators other than the one who administered the block." So I don't agree there is any fixed numerical limit but rather application of common sense - i.e. if someone is using the template disruptively then their page can be protected. However, I also feel it's common sense, and supported by policies, that the blocking admin may leave notes and comments for reviewing admins and participate in any appeal discussions, but unless they are unblocking the user themselves, should not remove the request or decline the appeal themselves (shockingly, I have seen that done before and in one instance it was the blocked user's very first use of the template!). The other thing is, deciding who is using the template "disruptively" is, like most behavioural issues, often a very subjective thing and I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people who would not consider the third appeal the user in this instance made was a "disruptive" use of the appeal template -[1]. And since we have plenty of admins and block reviewers, it seems common sense that admins should protect themselves and not take actions that put themselves in a potentially compromised position or a position where they appear to be acting with a conflict of interest. That said, I wasn't trying to kick up drama and only wanted to raise with Jehochman my concern that appeals should be managed by uninvolved admins and all I was looking for was some kind of acknowledgment so I accept his responses here and have no further concerns regarding it. Sarah 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first 2 were disruptive as they attempted to lawyer their way out of a block (attack the system). Now that I've found the talk page, the third one probably should have been reviewed by an uninvolved admin. If he just said the same thing again in the unblock though I would have said Jehochman did the right thing. -Royalguard11(T) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RG; agreed, the first two were pretty blatant wikilawyering but the admins who do block reviews would have (and did) quickly see those for what they were and dealt with them appropriately, so I still feel in such instances it's best to leave them to independent admins. Users who try to wikilawyer out of blocks will usually use something like the blocking admin reverting their appeal as a rationale to wikilawyer more and that's what he's actually been trying to do. As well, the admins who responded to the first two unblock requests declined to unblock on the basis of the merits of the requests themselves and that the "unblock request contain[ed] no assurances that [the user's] behavior will stop" and that he had not presented "a reason to unblock"; then when he did present something of a reason which was somewhat policy-based - that he was warned then blocked without being given an opportunity to action the warning, the request was reverted. The nature of the previous reviews effectively invited the user to present a policy-based request and did not warn him that he was at the limit of his requests and was not permitted further use of the template so further appeals would be reverted without review. While the template does warn that disruptive use of the template can result in the page being protected, he was also getting the message: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again" and as the guide linked contains no numerical limit of appeals, and following the previous admins' comments, I think he would have reasonably felt invited to post a non-wikilawyerish appeal that dealt with the issues raised by the reviewing admins. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for this fellow or suggesting he should be unblocked. If I had reviewed the third appeal, I would have endorsed the block and declined his request anyway but because the first two appeals were dismissed as not being policy-based appeals and not dealing with the actual block rationale, he effective didn't really have a proper independent review of the block (although admittedly Jayrons's decline addressed issues that would have been raised if he had posted a reasonable non-wikilawyery appeal). So I still think the path of least drama, disruption and self-protection for the blocking administrator, is to follow WP:APPEAL, BLOCK, GAB, ADMIN, etc and leave the requests to other admins. Sarah 02:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:

• Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting user pages (again)

It's fine if you disagree with current (agreed-upon) policy, but there needs to be discussion first. While I appreciate the boldness, months ago (see June archive) we agreed that semi-protection (or full-protection) would only be applied in cases of vandalism or disruption. This is a wiki; protection is a big deal and shouldn't be applied willy-nilly. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some users (not me) were of the opinion that user pages were special or something (I don't remember the reasoning anymore). I never agreed with the idea that users should just be able to get protection on demand for their userpages. -Royalguard11(T) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No "Move"?

Surely it is in an archive: why cannot I move (change) the title of a semi-locked page? e.g. Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Talk has been made useless. -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Museography

This is page that is created so that I understand the mechanism of my new account on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioana Justina Iuga - museographer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

I proposed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Editnotice that every user's editnotice (see User_talk:Dank55/Editnotice) should be protected so that only that user and admins can edit it, and gave my reasons there. That didn't work. Plan B is that we should make it clear here at WP:PROTECT that it's okay to get an admin to protect that page (via transclusion in the way that Tra suggested, so that the user as well as admins will be able to edit it). WP:PROTECT#Permanent protection includes "Pages that are very frequently transcluded", and a user's Editnotice is reproduced at the top of the screen every time someone leaves a message on their talk page. That's not "transclusion" per se, but the idea is the same ... a lot of harm could be done if someone changes someone's editnotice while they're on wikibreak, or at any time, really, so I propose adding this page to the list of pages that it's okay to permanently protect, when requested by the user, in the way Tra suggested. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. On a completely different note: all of the enforcement policy pages, including WP:PROTECT, are now included in the monthly diffs at WP:Update. Yay me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_46#Custom_edit_messages, I've found there's a way for a user to disable edits to their Editnotice pages: create a page called User:[username]/Editnotice.css, and put the single word "off" on that page. That's probably a better way to go than page protection, so I'll withdraw the suggestion. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Spoke too soon ... that's supposed to work, but doesn't. I've contacted some of the people who have discussed this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The MediaWiki:Editnotice-2 and MediaWiki:Editnotice-3 pages look for "{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Editnotice", I think what was being suggested was to look for "{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Editnotice.css" first then without the .css extension. By only changing it to only look for the .css extension, I think it would be possible to prevent users (with the exception of administrators) from creating or editing editnotice pages in other users' namespaces – would this cause any problems (other than the need for existing editnotice pages to be moved)? —Snigbrook 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the feature I'd most like to see, and there was some support for that in the original discussion in October at WP:VPT. I don't know much about templates or .css so I can't speak to the implementation. I've left messages for a couple of guys who do know that stuff; no replies yet. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

i hate foot ball

A new External link

I propose the addition of a new external link, an English language website which brings positive economic news about Brazil. It is published by Stephen Kanitz, a former Business Professor at the University of São Paulo and a current columnist at Veja magazine. The link: http://brazil.melhores.com.br/

Please direct comments relating to a certain article on that article's talk page. -Royalguard11(T) 01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think there is too much vandalism at the english pages. I suggest a similar approach as the german version: "edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from accounts that are not autoconfirmed" should be marked "unsafe version - provisorily" in page's head (and so include a link to previous "safe version") until it gets a "OK" - "peer review" of an established user. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions (and subpages) for a very very very long discussion of this feature. SoWhy 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

It is proposed to run a trial of Flagged Revisions at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. The proposal is divided in two parts:

• Flagged protection: an article can be 'protected' by an administrator so that the version viewed by readers by default is the latest flagged version. This is a modified version of the original flagged protection proposal.
• Patrolled revisions: a 'passive' flag used to monitor articles, especially blps, for vandalism, blp violations, pov pushing, etc, that can be used for all articles, but has no effect on the version viewed by readers.

The proposals are independent but supplement each other. They involve the creation of a 'reviewer' usergroup. This implementation can support secondary trials. The main trial should run for two months, then a community discussion should decide the future of the implementation. Cenarium (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A poll has started at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll. Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem semi-protecting an article

I recently semi-protected the page Dank55(send/recieve) on the grounds that an anonymous user keeps adding a section advertising what would appear to be his own business. However, since I did so, there has been no less than 3 anonymous edits.

You cannot protect pages, because you are not an administrator. Simply adding a protection template does not protect an article. Administrators have an extra action tab between "move" and "watch" called "protect", which links to a form from which the article can be protected. You can request that a page be protected or semi-protected at WP:RFPP. Happy‑melon 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Thanks -- I'll do that.Prof Wrong (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the text here is a little over the top. "They were so entranced with her presence" is basically just Tyra's PR. It's inevitable, and I really don't want to bother editing this page, as I think she's a sanctimonious bore (and probably wouldn't be so fair), but if someone is serious about this page, consider toning down the fawning. 75.13.86.109 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages: should policy require an unprotected subpage?

(discussion cloned from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=282445080#Indefinitely_semi-protected_user_talk_pages:_should_policy_require_an_unprotected_subpage?)

Some users are subject to vandalism on their user talk pages which can be quite disruptive. As such, user talk pages may sometimes be protected indefinitely (see Wikipedia:SEMI#User pages). My concern is that this effective disenfranchises non-autoconfirmed users, leaving them unable to contact that particular editor even in good faith. Users who enjoy semi-protection of their talk pages should be asked to create a subpage to allow anonymous users to contact them. As it is a subpage, the orange bar will not disrupt the victim, vandalism will be quickly reverted, and swift blocks can be issued for offenders. No doubt we may make a few exceptions for severe abuse on a case-by-case basis. –xeno (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with this as current mechanisms are in place for such problems (namely talk pages & registering). The only reason semi-protection should be implemented at all is because of excessive/severe IP/new user problems. Providing another page by which to continue such disruption/slander/libel/etc. effectively bypasses the semi-protection. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing about having a subpage is it's just not as "fun" for the vandals to bother you there. Anyhow, I am talking about the general case here, yours may fall under the IAR exception. I am most concerned about the people who interact with anons on a more regular basis like hugglers, new page patrollers, and the like. –xeno (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Perhaps those "severe abuse" exceptions could be spelled out. I'd consider supporting this under those conditions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say things that could potentially cause real-world harm to the editor (outing, severe defamation, and the like) would be examples of exceptions. –xeno (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that "vandalism will be quickly reverted, and swift blocks can be issued for offenders" on a subpage, but not the user's main talk page? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When a user takes the time out to vandalize an anon-talk subpage, you can be pretty safe in blocking whether or not they've received any {{uw}}'s. –xeno (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of keeping communication open, I feel it would be a good idea to require users with indef semi protected talk pages to also have a subpage where anons can post to. Like Xeno said above, users found vandalizing these subpages can probably be blocked on the spot as they are surely the reason the users talk page was protected in the first place. Tiptoety ^talk 04:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Xeno and Tiptoety. No editor should be isolated from legitimate IP posts. — Ched :  ?  07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

having an unprotected subpage would seem a minimal necessity; editors need to be accessible to communication. For reasons of their own, many reliable users continue to remain as IP accounts. DGG (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

“ Users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users. ”

^ Proposed addendum to WP:PROT#User pages. –xeno (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we define "lengthy"? Or just leave it open to interpretation? -- Alexf^(talk) 17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question... I'd say anything longer than a few weeks could be considered "lengthy", depending on how active the user is. (meanwhile, I've implemented my proposed wording above) –xeno (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I feel we need to make it clear that attempts to vandalize such pages will not be looked highly upon, and will only result in one warning if any prior to blocking. Like I said above, anons that go out of their way to vandalized a subpage are clearly the ones that caused the persons talk page to be protected to begin with and as such, such not be given the courtesy of four warnings. Tiptoety ^talk 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no orange bar indicating that a new post has happened, how is the user supposed to know there has been any attempt at communication and why would they ever bother to look at such a page? Its stated purpose to "allow communication" would not seem to be facilitated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By adding it to their watchlist. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So the policy is going to require the person to add the page to their watch list and to monitor changes to it?? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of what's been proposd. I would hope that users at least peek at the page once in a while to see if anyone tried to contact them in good faith - it's not much to ask. –xeno (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that requiring viewing is beyond what has been proposed- but really if anyone who has their user page blocked from IP edits is going to communicate with an IP on a subpage, they are going to have to do it volontarily, and they can voluntarily create the subpage now. What is the benefit of creating a mandatory policy for a nonmandatory viewing? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCS takes care of that. Any wikipedian who creates a page to receive communication would look at it regularly. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is my point entirely. This is creating a new (aspect of) policy that will have no effect greater than current voluntary option offer. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, people do not see Xeno's proposal as common sense. Once implemented, IF people whose talk pages are semiprotected don't look at their unprotected talk pages, we can consider enforcing this - but we really won't need to. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) if you really want a an answer to the problem that would ensure IPs are able to communicate with (i.e. demonstrable 2 way sharing of information/viewpoints - and not just the illusion of communication via a post on a never read page), then you could create some type of centralized notice board and real humans monitor the communications from IP's and where appropriate make a post to the semi-protected page. But that seems like it would take a lot of energy that could have been put to actual useful constructive contributions to building an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition to the protection policy isn't forcing anyone to do or not do anything. It just suggests they have a user talk subpage for non-autoconfirmed users. It's pretty simple, and these objections you are raising are straw men. –xeno (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, I see where you are coming from, and understand your concerns. That said, this is simply saying that a subpage should be set up. It is not telling anyone what to do with it, or whether to read it. The same can be said of talk pages. They are there for communication, but the user can choose to ignore messages there nonetheless. Tiptoety ^talk 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just weighing in to add support for this as a sensible addition (in fact I could have sworn it was already recommended elsewhere). Mayalld (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support the use of "should" over "may wish to". If you're talk page is protected, you should have some way for anons to contact you (if you are having your talk page protected for the sole purpose of prohibiting anons, then it should be revoked). "Should" is a stronger wording, so I support that. The wording as it is I would say is fine. -Royalguard11(T) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

indef-semi user talk pages - arbitrary break

• I just noticed that until someone boldly added the bit about protecting user talk pages in February, the policy simply said User talk pages are not usually semi-protected. In any case, I'd appreciate if users would discuss changes to the added sentence rather than tag-teaming to soften it up. –xeno (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing bold about documenting existing policy in more detail. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

creep creep creep. It is clearly a major change in policy approach that should require more than 5 people's input before implementation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'd be happy to just go back to the days of not protecting user talk pages. It's very un-wiki to do so without giving non-autoconfirmed users some way to contact you. –xeno (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, make that 6 people, then. Users absolutely need some way to let anons communicate with them. Period. --Conti|✉ 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Conti. To TheRedPen: Decisions are made by those who show up. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And quickly unmade or ignored if they impinge on actual working practice. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposed policy would create a positive obligation on Wikipedia users by requiring the User to watch a page only because he was attacked. This is unlike any other Wikipedia policy, because it does not even work with an open Wiki.

All other User obligations apply only to a user that does something, and apply only to what he does; they do not require anything of a non-editing reader or an inactive editor, and active editor is required only for those acts in which he is active.

When an editor is obliged to verify the accuracy of information he has added, Wikipedia:Verifiability applies because he is adding information, and only the the added information is his obligation. When an Administrator protects a page according to the Wikipedia:Protection policy, it applies because he is protecting a page, and only his protection is his obligation.

For this reason, the proposed policy is unenforceable, unlike all existing policies. If a User does not watch his alternate page, is the remedy to unprotect his User-Talk page, making a forever-attacked Talk page? Enlist another registered user to forward all legitimate messages? Block him from editing at all, making the proposed policy more like Wikipedia:I would like to be unblocked or Wikipedia:Will my new username anger, disgust, or confuse? than Wikipedia:Under attack, protect me. Unverifiable text is deleted. Wrongly protected pages are unprotected. Vandals, edit-warriors, and curmudgeons of all shapes, blocked. Reverted, deleted, moved, desysopped, all remedies for violations, irrelevant to an inactionable policy.

Furthermore, this particular proposal empowers the attacker to force the victim to remember him and act, and does not disable his direct and now required contact with the victim.

On the contrary, the onus of a legitimate IP user to talk to the rare protected talk page is as simple as once creating an anonymous account, and is needless for the prevailing topics of IP users which belong in Article Talk pages or Wikipedia Talk pages. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like "Users with semi-protected talk pages should" or "Users with semi-protected talk pages may wish to", "create and watch an unprotected alternate talk page for unregistered supplicants" would be correct, but might be instruction creep. —Centrx→talk • 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction: An anon wouldn't just have to create an account to talk to someone whose talk page is semi-protected, they would have to create an account, make 10 edits with it, wait 4 days, and then they could talk to whomever they wanted to talk to. That's, frankly, not acceptable. I agree that we shouldn't "enforce" this idea, since we can't enforce it (just like we can't enforce people to reply to anything at all on their talk page), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strongly encourage it. --Conti|✉ 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies on Wikipedia are enforceable. The proposal sought to add a compulsion to the policy, which is either enforceable or is a lie. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the current language as modified by BQZip01:

  It is suggested that users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time create an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.(emphasis mine)

  This makes it clear that it is not a requirement, but that it is a good idea. The objectors above are correct that we cannot force editors to pay attention to IP editors if they just don't want to. However, I don't see why policy cannot even recommend a way for users to make themselves available for communication from IP editors.--Aervanath (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I still support the "should" wording over "suggested", again because it's stronger. It is not a change in policy or a punishable offense, but I think it should be strongly recommended to have a way for anons to talk to you. User talk pages should only be protected for long periods of time as a last resort anyways, so this won't change too much (the only person I can remember who had a long term protected talk page was User:Ryulong). -Royalguard11(T) 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

communication forums are good things. faux "communication" forums that only give an illusion of communication, like "suggestion boxes" at work that are never opened except to dump the suggestions into the garbage, are bad ideas. with language like "should create subpages" wikilawyers are going to hound users to create pages that are never looked at. IPs are going to try to "communicate" with folks who arent going to participate. And then what? the IPs are going to be even more frustated that they aren't being heard in a forum that explicitly suggests that they will be heard. Bad bad bad all around. Framing the suggestion as a "best practice", or one that a user "may wish to" - language that will only create the appearance of communication forum where the registered user is actually going to participate in an actual communication forum - is fine. Anything else is instruction creep that is simply setting up additional problems. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the idea that this will be some sort of requirement. It is a suggestion, but it should be a strong suggestion. Most user talk protections should only be in the 24-48 hour range anyways. As I said on the VP, if your talk page is semiprotected for a long term and you want to keep that because it prohibits anons, then protection should be revoked anyways (that's already policy: "...nor should [semi protection] be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users").

It's really a clarification. If you have a long term s-p talk page and someone thinks you are abusing that privilege, then an admin can take a look and make a decision as to whether there is a legitimate reason to keep the page protected or whether it's no longer needed. This is really another option, if you have a long term s-p talk page and an unprotected subpage then it is evident that you are not abusing the s-p.

You're delving way too much into human psychology, and I for one am not going to let psycho-bable drive policy. It is wholly irrelevant whether it is an appearance of communication (or "illusion") or actual communication because I can make the exact same argument for regular user talk pages. I leave my talk page unprotected (even when I picked up a bit of a wiki-stalker a couple years ago) so anyone can leave me a message. I try to respond to anyone who leaves me a message, but I could just ignore all messages which would be bad form for an admin (especially if it were something involving me), but I could. Your argument is moot, a straw man. If you have any more legitimate reasons then let us hear them, but enough about people's intentions (and don't be so pessimistic). -Royalguard11(T) 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You could "pretend not to know" you have messages on your talk page, but you get the orange bar letting you know that such communication does in fact exist. And even Wikipedia's assumption of good faith presume that a message posted on a users talk page will count as valid communication to the user - even if the user chooses to ignore or not read the message (the same way sending a piece of registered mail counts as "legal notification" even if you toss the envelope in the garbage unopened). As you continually agree, for a communication on a subpage to actually be "communication" requires the voluntary participation of the user with the protected talk page. Anything other than voluntary participation by people who will actually use the method of communiction is adding instructions purely for instructions sake. There is no benefit to the project to "should" into existence non-value add pages that will actually increase IP editors frustration when their "communication" goes ignored. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is not going to monitor their unprotected talk page is very unlikely to create one anyway. This does not negate the suggestion that they should. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@Royalguard11 - I dont really feel your position "I put up with death threats, other wikipedia editors should, too" is a position that I would consider helpful to wikipedia @Royalguard11 again- re "straw dogs", no more than the basis of the entire "reason" for the change to policy - implication that IPs lack any method to communicate to protected pages- as pointed out above, they can create an account, or use {help me} on their talk page to go through an intermediary, amongst others.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me understand, you are against a suggestion that users should do (in rare cases), but anons should jump through as many hoops as we can throw at them? And can you please give an actual response, all this talk about "notice" is sounding awfully wiki-lawyery, and as I said above the actual communication is irrelevant to the topic at hand. All you've done is ignored what I've said and repeated the same ramble as before and still with no legitimate reason besides "I don't want feeling hurt because the illusion of communication is worse then no communication" (again, irrelevant). -Royalguard11(T) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If we arent talking about IPs being able to communicate to users with protected talk pages, then I have completely been in the wrong conversation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We are, it's just your position is as I have said irrelevant. It does not matter whether or not there is actual communication, what matters is that there is a venue for communication. Without a venue there can be no communication, which in my opinion is worse then having a venue and not using it. -Royalguard11(T) 17:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - "appearances" of communication are actually more important than actual communication? If that is your position. I have no more to discuss with you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you said that there's no point in having the page if no one uses them, and I said that's not the point. Having a page is still much better then not having one, can't we agree on that? -Royalguard11(T) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No I dont agree - having a page that an IP editor has every right to assume is a real communication forum but is not actually a communication forum at all is only going to frustrate the IP editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Moreso than just being denied a venue altogether? –xeno (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But they arent being "denied" - as above - if they really want to communicate there are options. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Create an account, make 10 edits, wait 4 days. Yeah, can't see why anyone would have problems with that. --Conti|✉ 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

or 10 keystrokes {helpme}. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

and these users will know about helpme, how exactly? perhaps an alternative to a subpage could be the transclusion of some notice instructing anons how to contact the editor if they need to. –xeno (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just asking to apply the basics of WP:CREEP - 1) identifying the actual issue, 2) creating a fix that actually addresses THAT issue, 3) that doesnt create false positives or other bad side effects.

Add {helpme} instructions to the "you cant edit this page" warning that pops up.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded from Commons

Why do we specifically have to upload it from Commons locally when we can easily just protect it on Commons (as we do usually), then put the template saying its protected here, then lock the page locally? Why is there that extra step? I am wanting to know this since some people are trying to deprecate specific license tags to be "Commons-only", and I want to not cause any harm in doing so. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Images can be protected on commons when they would fulfil the protection criteria for multiple projects; for instance the images used in the mbox templates, which have been ported to many other wikis. An image which is, for instance, used on the enwiki main page, is not otherwise special, and wouldn't warrant protection on commons (as it would stop users from other wikis being able to edit and improve it). So in those situations we upload a local copy and protect that, so the Commons version can remain unprotected. Happy‑melon 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask Commons admins that question. You can always ask for an image to be protected on commons, but I guess the short answer would be that if they won't then we have to do it locally. Most of us are only admins here. -Royalguard11(T) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Message on salted pages

Why does the message on salted pages say "please do not contact the protecting administrator"? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about "old style" salted pages or the new style? Maybe it's because I'm an admin but I don't see that message on the ordinary protected non-existent red-link titles. In my opinion though, it should be the same procedure as questioning protections about regularly protected pages, the first step is to contact the protecting admin. I'm not sure why it would say not to do that. It's probably buried in some Mediawiki: page too. Maybe someone else here knows why? -Royalguard11(T) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is because you're an admin; for most users, if the protection reason is {{pp-create}} then that template is automagically transcluded onto the edit screen when you try to edit. Otherwise you get a generic "this page has been protected from creation" warning. I guess the only reason would be that salted pages have a higher chance of having been protected by an admin who has now left the project? Happy‑melon 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even want to imagine how many current pages were protected by admins who have now left. I would guess it would be quite a few. No reason not to try and contact them, but if they haven't edited in x months then there's probably no point. I know, I bet it has something to do with WP:DRV. That would sometimes be where we'd send someone if they made a request at RFPP. -Royalguard11(T) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the message I saw came from {{Pp-create-old}}, which appears to have been used when deprecating "protected pages" in 2007. The admin who did the protection probably did not know anything specific about the page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection rationales and lengths

Shouldn't protection rationales be spelled out on the talk page of the protected page? Especially indefinitely protected ones? 76.66.196.218 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection rationales are usually specified in the protection log, the last entry from which is shown at the top of the edit window when a user tries to edit the page. For some indef-protected pages, like templates, the {{permprot}} template is used on the talk page. Happy‑melon 07:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen many "rationales" that don't provide rationales in the protection logs. They just say "protected" (or similar) with no rationale given. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a problem that needs to be corrected. Admins should always provide a clear explanation of why they are protecting a page. If you see a particular admin consistently failing to explain their proctection actions, feel free to drop them a note on their talk page asking them to do so in future. Happy‑melon 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. That was a problem when I use to go through the protected pages to try and unprotect some. When the rationale is just "protected" or "vandalism" you don't know if they mean long term sock target or sometime. I would say go and bug them and ask them why. Unless the reason is either OFFICE or OTRS related, they have to tell you. If they won't tell you why they protected something then if you wanted to you could ask even me to bug them (I don't mind bugging other admins). If they can't produce any reason then that page probably doesn't need to be protected. I would hope that most of the time just asking would do the trick though. -Royalguard11(T) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, if you think the protection was too long, just unprotect it or shorten the protection. I do this all the time and there has never been a problem. --causa sui ^talk 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Pollution Article

I noticed the Pollution article was lacked because I couldn't edit it, but there is no symbol and I don't know how to put a symbol.

that helps. -Royalguard11(T) 00:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Would it not make sense to semi protect the day's FA since this is a highly visible page that is prone, and, without protection, very vulnerable, to vandalism and well meaning but possibly disruptive edits from new users and IPs. For example, LSWR N15 class, when it was on the main page 4 days ago (I think) was repeatedly redirected to toilet, reverted, redirected again etc etc. HJMitchell You rang? 14:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• No. This is a perennial proposal and it's always rejected. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. --causa sui ^talk 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on which version to protect

The WP:PREFER section currently says (bolding mine):

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute

As mentioned in the foregoing discussion, this has the perverse effect of rewarding the most aggressive edit warriors (the harder you fight, the more likely it is that your version will be on top when the protection comes in), and of frustrating those who make the effort to reach decisions through consensus (no account is taken of whether prior consensus was reached). I suggest we can improve this; my initial idea is:

Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute. When protecting a page because of a content dispute, an administrator makes an effort to ensure that the (temporary) protected version of the page is one that best conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and any existing consensus, and best serves readers of the encyclopedia. Namely:

• any vandalism, copyright violations, defamation of living persons or other obvious policy infringements should be repaired or removed;
• the results of any past discussion on the issue in question should be respected;
• any relevant sourced information removed without clear justification should be restored;
• any clearly irrelevant information, or unsourced controversial information, should be removed;
• matters of style and layout should be resolved according to guidelines;
• outstanding matters should be resolved according to what has most recently existed in stable form (particularly if the page in question is a policy, guideline or process page), any new consensus that appears to be forming, and if necessary the administrator's own judgement.

The above criteria are to be applied in good faith by the protecting administrator. It may be more important to protect the page quickly and then apply the criteria afterwards, in civil discussion with other involved editors. In any case it must be made absolutely clear that this action is only temporary, and that civil discussion on reaching a permanent resolution to disagreements should continue. While the page remains protected, only uncontroversial changes or changes for which there is clear consensus may be made to it.

Thoughts? (Please bear in mind that this is an initial draft idea only; it's almost certainly not going to be enacted in this form, so writing support or oppose at this stage is probably unhelpful, though I can't stop you.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Way too complicated. --causa sui ^talk 10:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For whom? It would be done by admins; I think they've got the intellectual capacity to apply a few simple criteria (at least they should have).--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's too complicated for everyone involved. It reads like a flow chart or a procedure. Severe instruction creep. --causa sui ^talk 11:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the fact that it reads like a procedure make it complicated? To me that makes it easier to follow. And I knew the phrase "instruction creep" would inevitably arise - but this is a very important area for the project, where it's important to have explicit and logical instructions. Better ten sentences that make rational sense, than two sentences that have a completely undesirable effect, or no sentences that leave everyone in the dark about what behaviour is appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is very important to the project that it not have explicit and logical instructions. --causa sui ^talk

(multiple ecs...) It's actually not that complicated; it's just delimiting common-sense cleanup - which is way beyond what admins should be doing in this context (as part of applying page protection), qua admins. The proposal makes admins into content adjudicators, which is radically different from the status quo. This is not a good idea at all. To be slightly less negative: if we were going to have "content adjudicators", sort of "super-editors" who come in and try and fix a disputed situation they're not involved with and have some sort of respected status, well, that probably wouldn't fly either but it might produce an interesting/productive discussion; try proposing it at VPP. Any such status, however, would absolutely have to not be linked with adminship. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "this is not a good idea at all" supposed to follow from "this is radically different from the status quo"? If not, what does it follow from? --Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It follows from the second sentence; I'm not sure why a subclause of it confused you. Rd232 ^talk 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And would you (and Ryan) be any happier if the list of criteria and the first sentence after it were removed, leaving the rest of the proposal as is? (That way it certainly wouldn't be instruction creep, and doesn't seem the least bit radical.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the list would definitely help, but I would still prefer to leave the policy as it is. --causa sui ^talk 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As it is? But that's the version that rewards edit warring. I thought you wanted to get rid of the instruction completely (which I might actually prefer over retaining the existing version).--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing version isn't my first choice either (you can find my first choice above), but I suggested removing it because I thought we might be able to agree about it that way. --causa sui ^talk 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the policy recommendation is an improvemennt. But between the evils of rewarding edit warring and granting admins the ability to choose versions, and hence lose impartiality, and revert unrelated edits - I think the latter is worse. We already have the 3RR which is one of the few actually enforced policies on wikipedia. Ryan Delaney talks about about IAR, but I think the most common application of that is edit warring and admin's having the appearance of impartiality is important.Archaic d00d (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait. How does the existing version reward edit warring? --causa sui ^talk 04:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If the edit-warrior reverts and then protection is applied (mostly due to a request at RFPP by said edit-warrior), they will see their version "set in stone" for a period of time (usually more than a week), thus possibly limiting their willingness to talk about those changes, seeing as they already achieved their goal for now. The current wording of the policy seeks to remove that flaw by restoring a version that both sides of an edit-war have to agree on to predate said edit-war, thus restoring a (somewhat) stable version of the article for public view and shifting the burden of proof back to the one adding the controversial material. Regards SoWhy 06:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't see how the policy supports it. The policy says that administrators usually protect the current version, which is true as a matter of common practice. It then suggests reverting to a stable version. --causa sui ^talk 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you protect the "current version", you're rewarding the side of the edit war that warred most effectively (that should be totally obvious). Protecting a "stable version" might be better in most cases (so it should be more than just a vague optional suggestion), but still you might be rewarding the side that provoked the edit war, as SoWhy explains.--Kotniski (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, let me try this a different way: Protecting and particular version might reward edit warriors. And nobody is going to know whether it does, or what the best thing to do is, better than the protecting administrator in each case. We can't sit here and work that all out beforehand. I'll make some small edits to emphasize this point. Let me know what you think. --causa sui ^talk 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your change certainly seems to be an improvement. On reading the section I also notice a few small changes of wording I would like to make (not controversial I hope, just clarifying), so I'll be similarly bold and try making those.--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why the possibility of rewarding an edit warrior is worse than letting admins choose versions, and anybody censor an article by starting an edit war. Actually I have an idea (though still disliking the concept), in the case of information being removed, a consensus can be assumed to exist before hand (though this is a weak assumption and talk page evidence can override it), when new information is added (and leads to an edit war) no consensus assumptions can be made so the admin should simply protect the current page.Archaic d00d (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of indefinite semi-protection

I have been reading the policy page very carefully and I would like opinions on a point from other users. In a situation where a single anonymous IP has posted a few harassing comments on another user's talk page, over a period of less than a half-hour, is a semi-protection of the target user's talk page appropriate?

Would a temporary semi-protection be appropriate? My feeling is that this situation does not warrant a semi-protection because temporarily blocking the single harassing user is a feasible option.

According to Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection, semi-page protection is appropriate for "heavy and continued vandalism". Does a single incident of harassment with a relatively few number of posts lasting less than a half-hour constitute "heavy and continuous" vandalism? Would an indefinite S-PP be appropriate? The rough guide to semiprotection states "Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously. This shows that the problem is ongoing, and that temporary semi-protection does not have a lasting effect." The policy page states "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism".

I feel that based on these guidelines, neither form of page protection is appropriate. Obviously I have expressed my opinions already and desire the feedback and opinons of other users regarding this policy. Thank you for your time and assistance. Some guy (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, based on what you've said. Block disruptive users before protecting pages they are disrupting wherever possible. --causa sui ^talk 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Would anyone else like to comment? Some guy (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. User talk pages, more so than all other pages, should be protected as seldom as possible because it will effectively remove the possibility for anonymous and new editors to contact said user. As such, it should always be tried to block the disrupting user(s) first and only if that proves unfeasible, protection might be applied but almost never indefinitely but always as short as possible. I know that some admins like to do so with their talk pages but I do not think that is the correct approach. Regards SoWhy 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Recent co-editing has led to slight inconsistency in the wording relating to how changes to protected pages are to be proposed/made. Before trying to put it right, does anyone disagree with any of the following:

• if a change to a protected page is proposed somewhere other than its talk page, there should at least be a note on that talk page directing people to the discussion?
• if a change is proposed that seems non-controversial, an admin can just make it without any need for discussion or consensus-forming?
• if an admin wants to make a non-controversial change, they can just make it without prior announcement? (not sure about this one myself)
• (obviously in the above two cases, if a change proves unexpectedly controversial it can be reverted)
• an admin shouldn't be protecting or unprotecting a page where he's involved in a dispute, regardless of whether such action appears to "further his position" in the dispute?

--Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, but it is a bit creepy to add this to the page. It is a good idea to do it generally, yes; but it's common practice and I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. In this case, less is more.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "announcement". Where would they announce it and why?
3. Originally, this part talked about "involvement". There was a long discussion about this a year or so back and we settled on this wording. I'm sure it's somewhere in the archives.

--causa sui ^talk 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so let's consider just the second of my four points, then (which if I understand your numbering correctly you haven't replied to). If someone proposes a non-controversial change, the admin just does it, right? - there doesn't have to be any discussion or wait for consensus to form. This is what I've observed happen, and I can't think of any reason why we would want to discourage that.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems right. --⟳ausa کui ^× 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I've put the information in the appropriate places that uncontroversial changes can be made without any formalities. By the way, is move protection always full, or is it possible to "semi-move-protect" a page (with the permission move=autoconfirmed)?--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are three protection levels: unprotected, semi-protected, and fully protected. Each of these levels can be applied independently to the move or edit fields. In response to this diff [2], I'm not sure how these are different. What kind of edit is uncontroversial but doesn't have consensus supporting it? Do we really need to mention both uncontroversial changes and consensus changes? ⟳ausa کui ^× 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there are two distinct situations: (1) someone requests a change, admin decides it's uncontroversial, makes the change; (2) someone proposes a change, discussion ensues, consensus is reached, admin makes the change. For us it may be obvious, but to avoid misleading newcomers (or giving ammunition to wikilawyers) I think we need to mention both possibilities.--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. Something about this wording still strikes me as a bit odd, but it's not really a big deal. ⟳ausa کui ^× 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)