Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 11

Narwhal horn

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-function-of-narwhals-tooth.htm this website suggests that the narwhal horn is actually a specialized sensory apparatus... does anyone know of any sources that collaborate this claim? It seems pretty plausible to me and I don't think the article really mentions anything about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.193.45 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to ask such a question, WP:RS/N is the place to go. Gigs (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Retirement Protection

I've found a lot of retired users' user pages and often even their user talk pages indef protected, sometimes but not always at user request. What basis are admins protecting these user talk pages on? We don't even protect the talk pages of deceased users, why should we ever protect the page of a retired user unless it's currently receiving vandalism? I don't think such protection is in accord with policy. Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably done when such a page becomes vandalised and since the owner is not around it is preferred to protect the page. But that is just a guess. I am as curious as you are. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the logic would be that such pages are not in use, and may not be watched for vandalism, and may be more vulnerable to vandalism, because people who've retired may well have made enemies. So protection here is a response to seeing vandalism and wishing to make sure it doesn't happen again. Whether that's within protection policy, I don't know; it may just be application of WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The logic I can see, but how it fits into policy I can't, especially when we have a specific rule for deceased users that expressly says we don't protect the talk page. I've been going through indef full-protected user talk pages and finding many, far too many, who have been protected in variance to policy. These are a small part of the process but really most were never vandalized at all. Most were "user has left the project and requested nobody post here anymore" or such things as this; often they appeared to be making the request to blank and protect so that nobody could see their long list of warnings. Amazingly, these were granted. Most that I'm dealing with were protected years ago, so I don't see any good reason to keep them protected even if there was vandalism. I just want to make sure we don't have a strange consensus that retired users who request protection get it but dead users don't.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of the reports I'm working from. All of the comments and unprotections were done by me: User:MZMcBride/Sandbox_5.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll see other issues there and I haven't gotten very far down the list but I've left all of the retired users until I got some comments on what authority there is for this. The whole thing started when I started working my way through Wikipedia:Database_reports/Indefinitely_fully_protected_talk_pages because it had too many indef blocked user talk pages that were making the report impossible to use. There had been a discussion on this at AN regarding getting rid of the very old ones here; and a much earlier one that said that generally 6 months protection was long enough for indef blocked users. I then started to notice that many of the weren't protected blocked at all which caused me to request McBride run this report.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC) - but then that's all another issue. Just wanted to give you the reference reports and explain what all the markup was for. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that fully protecting user talk pages should be incredibly rare. I see no basis in policy to protect when users retire (or even die). I also don't see a particularly strong rationale to add an exception for those two groups. Yes, a dead person won't be reading their user talk page, but they surely also won't care what's delivered to it. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with protection for deceased users' talkpages, but not retired ones. If they don't want to come back, means they don't care. If their pages are much vandalised we might semi-protect them. We might even make that a part of the guidelines. Full protection I find unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and it seems that if we protect them it should only be for a limited time, say max six months as that's what the precedent is for indef blocked users under normal circumstances.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest the following be added to the User page section of this page in order to clarify what our policy is - and has been all along; addressing socks only because some admins seem to think the protection is standard, want to make it clear that it's not (and as I understand it, never has been) policy:

Retired users

Retired users follow the same rule as deceased users. Their talk pages should not be protected absent substantial current vandalism and never indefinitely. Requests to protect the page by the retiring user should not normally be entertained.

Blocked users

Blocked users' user pages and user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected. In extreme cases of abuse of the {{unblock}} template, the talk page may be protected for a short time to prevent the user from editing his or her own talk page. This should rarely be done as it prevents the user from requesting an unblock through the normal process. When required, it should be implemented for a brief period which should never exceed the length of the block or six months, whichever is shorter. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sock#Sock_puppets_.28registered_accounts.29; their pages are not normally protected.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is fine with me. But we should have more input on this than from 2-3 editors. I'd like to see 7 at least. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented since no one is commenting, comments above are already from more than 3 editors (Debresser's 7 is arbitrary) and in any case this has been up for over 10 days without further comment and it's merely a restatement of longstanding policy. See also WP:SILENCE. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with you and the edit you made, I still think that policy should not be decided with such small input. The number 7 was indeed arbitrary. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have made a modification to the language under "Retired users" due to a discussion on my talk page. The intent was to clarify the meaning consistent with the above discussion, and not to change anything further.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article talk pages

I've removed the sentence stating that articles and associated talk pages should not both be semiprotected at the same time. I think that current practice is that we should be extremely hesitant to semiprotect article talk pages, but the blanket admonition does not reflect current practice. In cases of egregious abuse, the best way forward is occasionally to semiprotect both an article and its talk page (see [1], for example). Policy can, and should (and does) recommend against semiprotecting talk pages, but it should not explicitly prohibit it, since on rare occasions it's the least bad option available. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

i disagree with this. for example Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident has been protected in addition to the article being protected. it sais on top that it is due to some users behavior. why don't they block those users. it is simply nonsense to block all anonymous editors from discussing because there might be few who are disruptive. is wikipedia becoming a closed and non-collaborative encyclopedia?

yes 123.225.210.202 (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

also, could someone post on above climate research unit talk page a request for de-protection? thanks. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

you have to post your request here: WP:RFUP. 123.225.210.202 (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. "Should not" is not the same as "must not", so the policy and practice are not different. The sentence is useful to remind administrators that talk page protections in addition to article protections should be used only when absolutely necessary and then only for short terms. But "should not...be both protected" does not mean that they can't if needed. Regards SoWhy 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember taking note of when this sentence was added a long time ago, and as far as I know it was added without discussion. I did not revert it at the time as SoWhy's interpretation of it was the same as mine; if it said "must not" I would object as it sometimes necessary to semi-protect talk pages, and this will almost end talk page semi-protection completely since if disruption is bad enough on the talk page to justify protection, it will nearly always spill over to justify semi-protection of the article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support the "should not" verbiage with the exceptions being just that. –xeno^talk 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - except that people interpret it as "must not" (e.g. here). Would it be OK to clarify this as "With rare exceptions..." or "generally should not both be protected"? I don't think it changes the meaning as you guys have described it, but it might be a useful clarification. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would not object to such a change. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the removal was a good thing. The previous sentence adequately explains the reason not to protect article talkpages in general, and there is no need to repeat that for the specific case where the article is also protected. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of semi-protection policy

Hi there,

I come here after a recent semi-protection discussion at Vanadium.

I felt that the semi-protection was not warranted, let alone for such length, and so I questioned it. After some unfruitful exchanges with the protecting admin and other regular editors of that page, I requested unprotection in the appropriate forum. Another admin came, explained his interpretation of the policy, and lowered the length from 6 months to 24 hours.

Both admins were obviously trying to do the right thing. Therefore, I would like to discuss the current semi-protection policy and make sure that it does not allow such wide range of interpretation of the criteria for protection eligibility and lengths. I feel that more quantitative guidelines and perhaps some examples might help.

During the debate, the protecting admin said

"We (i.e. project Elements) do have positive experience with users, anons or registered, posting a comment at talk page first."

Indeed, my research suggests that there has been a recent surge of similarly questionable protection in the area, which I am pursuing separately. I am concerned that WP:ELEMENTS, as a project, and perhaps also other projects that I am not aware of, might be subconsciusly driving towards a clique-ownership of the articles, taking a blanket position that IPs are up to no good, and effectively changing the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, at least within that project, by discouraging WP:BOLDness and moving towards mandated discussion before editing.

And maybe such attitude is justified. As a registered user myself and having made significant contributions in other projects, I can relate to the feeling that time spent fixing vandalism could be better spent in other more creative activities. I can also see how days may be changing for WP, whose IP contributions are naturally getting less substantial and more disruptive. So maybe this attitude is actually now justified, and we should debate openly the option of changing this policy accordingly. This is another goal of bringing the matter here.

Personally, I take a more idealistic view, that eventually vandals will learn (through better education, both from the institutions and WP editors) that it's both uncool and pointless to vandalise WP. I also think that very often the potential of IP contributions is underestimated. Please note I used "potential", which is different from "history". In fact, one thing I disagree with the current policy is that too much emphasis is put on the ratio between good and bad IP edits in the recent history, forgetting that history does not always tell us much about what could be happening tomorrow.

Finally, I think that the policy should better highlight alternative tools that admins have at their disposal to combat vandalism, for instance specific warnings/blocks and Abuse Filters to increase the amount of vandalism that gets reverted without manual intervention.

Thank you for any comments. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the list of articles protected indefinitely. Just glancing at the list, I can see that many of these protections needed not be indefinite, and fall foul of this policy. I wonder if we need better admin education on this matter. Thank you. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also met several instances where protection was no longer needed or full protection could be lowered to semi-protection. Once a page is protected, it becomes impossible to assess whether the threat has passed unless you unprotect it. Debresser (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is certainly one related issue. See this for example. How could the admin know that it was the semi-protection that prevented vandalism? Also if, as his comment suggests, there is no risk in allowing only autoconfirmed edits, why not semi-protect all WP articles? I think this is the key behind discouraging indefinite protections in our current policy, which I agree with. Soque1 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when an admin has protected a page with indefinite protection, he usually forgets about it, while the situation might change over time (a template may get out of use, an article's subject may get outdated). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is particularly true of articles treating subjects whose popularity is either inherently time-bound, or that are arguably going to be forgotten in a few years' time - and in any case if in doubt the admin should be conservative. A few random examples: Valiant (2005 film), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (U.S.), Jackass Number Two, Pro Evolution Soccer 2009. Soque1 (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Few of the editors affected by semi-protection have the dedication, knowledge (of Wikipedia processes) or confidence to suggest removal of protection. Those able to remove protection - or even know which template to put on what page to contest it - edit as normal, barely noticing the padlock. This may change under flagged protection, when experienced editors start to find themselves locked out because an IP or newcomer's recent changes are still pending approval. Certes (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of those indef semis should be changed. That largely involved an admin+free time+music (Cause it is a boring and repetitive task). Some articles will always be protected in some form simply because the ratio of "good" edits to "bad" from IP's is miniscule. But Debresser's suspicion probably accurately explains a lot of those indef semis. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins better be prepared to be attacked. I once removed a semi protection there for years because of two edits in a content dispute long ago and had a blast with the criticism for wheel-warring. There's plenty of fully protected articles as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct procedure is to approach the protecting editor first... Debresser (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be correct, but it seems pretty useless. Many admins in my experience are unaware of the policy - despite their claim to the contrary. Soque1 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite protection of Disney related articles

Because of a persistant sock puppeteer over 70 articles was indefinitely protected almost a year ago. (log entries) It has not stopped the the vandal though since he is still according to the editors who deals with on a regular basis very active vandalising other articles. I such protection justified. Looking at articles separately there is in opinion not enough vandalism to justify protection, but the situation is more complex since the total amount of subtle vandalism is a big problem. Opinions? Rettetast (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, its all that seems doable unless and until someone can either get his ISP and parents involved in the real world to put a stop to it, or Bell South Atlanta is basically blocked, and even that would only be a partial solution, as he vandalizes while visiting his relatives (and gleefully gloats about getting around the blocks) and has hit from his school (which did get their range blocked awhile). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing this site on and off virtually since its inception. I have never in all that time seen anything quite like this from a single vandal. General Tojo is the only other single-purpose/single-person vandal who comes to mind unless you count the indefatigable MascotGuy. Neither comes remotely close to the damage caused in volunteer time and server space this brat has imposed on this site. No one seems willing to shut down the IPs because of "collateral damage." Hey, it's no fun blocking legit users, but every edit I've encountered from those BellSouth IPs have been this nincompoop's. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a modified version of flagged revisions - set so that every edit from certain IP ranges comes up as needing to be checked before it goes live. ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the experiment of locking down all those articles has failed, I just blocked another BF sock a few minutes ago. I was one of those who pushed for those articles to be protected, in the hope that this loony might give up if we took away his favorite toys, but sadly this has not been the case. I wonder, if we did do the rangeblock, would BellSouth finally get of it's collective ass and do something? It seems like getting articles protected is now actually a goal in his sick little games. I'm often leaving them unprotected as "bait" lately, which he of course takes every time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the range that he is on? My guess is they haven't done rangeblocks because it may cause collateral damage. If this has gone on for 2 years, I think there should be a rangeblock and if there are innocent users who wish to edit from that range, they can always apply for an IP block exemption. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He jumps through several ranges. There have been some range blocks done, but then he goes to another one. The most recent blocks have been from the 70.146.213.xxx ones. I almost wonder if, crazy as it may sound, if the whole BellSouth Atlanta set could be blocked, to get his ISP to finally step up, since they have ignored at least one report (that I know of) asking them to deal with him. It may be inconvenient from the innocent IPs to have to apply for an exception, but at least it would put a stop to him except while he is traveling. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the technical know-how, having never done a rangeblock, but I support this idea. We might want to solicit a bit more input before proceeding though. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks might be of some use as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The range that he is on now is 70.146.192.0/18, see block log. If it's to be blocked again, it must be a hard block. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to what I said, his other IP range 68.220.160.0/19 is already blocked for 1 year, see it's block log. Lets hope the 70 IP range can get the same block too. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to get that 70.146.192.0/18 range blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101. Lets see what happens from here. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He got around it [2] ip resolves to Louisiana. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that one is him, though, as it made only one edit? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the nature of the edit makes it pretty clear. Sometimes when dealing with this kind of craziness it's easy to get paranoid, but this looks to me like he is aware of the rangeblock and is trying to tell us he already got around it. When I first got involved in this business he was obsessed with the Flower character, he only gave it up because the articles were locked. You know better than anyone how he likes to taunt and leave little hints. Specifically, the ip resolves to Monroe, Louisiana, which is not far from Mobile, Alabama, one of his known haunts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked the new IP again and it actually geolocates to Columbia Missouri, too far away from Mobile Alabama. The company is headquarted in Monroe LA but the IP pool is not from there Momo san ^Gespräch 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected pages

Are any pages fully protected besides heavily used templates and the Main Page? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 04:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Short periods of full protection are often applied to end content disputes and force edit warriors onto the talk page.

Currently protected pages are listed at Category:Wikipedia protected pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of fully protected articles (not including templates)? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my previous post. Click on the link and you will see a list of all articles that are currently fully protected. For example, Joseph Schlessinger is currently listed there as it is protected to stop WP:BLP violations from being added. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Database reports/Fully protected articles with unusually long expiries and Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully protected articles is what you are looking for? –xeno^talk 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do redirects qualify as salting?

I know salting is officially the protection of a nonexistent page, but I have on occasion (iPhone 4) protected redirects for the same reasons a page would be salted: to prevent WP:CRYSTAL and article fragmentation. I would like a clarification as to the exact classification of these protections, and perhaps for a note of it to be made in the policy. Thanks. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made the right decision with the iPhone page. It was my impression that salting was more used for non notable pages that keep getting created (think A7), like somebody's garage band. If it's a page that "may" be a future product/sequel of something that already has page(s), then redirecting it back to the main/"first edition" page is probably the right call. -Royalguard11(T) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template protection

This discussion was moved here from Template talk:Information#Bring one parameter in line - request. --David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you move the protection template to the template itself? I prefer them on the documentation pages, and that is also what it says on Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Templates. Not that it is an important enough issue to change it back, but I don't see why it has to be moved into the template either. Or did you add it to the template first, and didn't notice that there was one in the documentation already? Debresser (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

End part moved here from the other page.

First an explanation to anyone else reading this: {{pp-template}} should be added to all protected templates, it displays a small padlock in the upper right corner and categorizes the page as a protected template. {{pp-template}} automatically detects if a template is semi or fully protected and displays the appropriate padlock. If {{pp-template}} is placed on an unprotected template it also detects that and reports the template into an error category.

Debresser: You want to have the {{pp-template}} in the /doc page of the templates (in the <includeonly> area). While praxis among most admins is to put it at the bottom of the template itself (in the <noinclude> area). Both places have their pros and cons.

1: Admins often forget to add the protection template when they protect a template. Then any user can add it to the /doc page to fix it.

2: Admins also often forget to remove the protection template when they unprotect a template, but then it doesn't matter if the protection template is on the template page or the /doc page since then any user can remove the template in both cases.

3: Users often add or remove the protection template from a template since they think that protects or unprotects the template. So having the protection template on the protected template itself prevents users from removing it when the template is still protected.

4: If users get used to seeing the protection template on /doc pages, then they might start to add it to /doc pages but in the wrong place outside the the <includeonly> area. Thus wrongfully showing the padlock on the /doc pages themselves.

Mostly due to reason 3 above I prefer to put {{pp-template}} on the template page itself when I protect a template. There's no reason for me as an admin to put it on the /doc page. But I find it very okay if users add the protection template to the /doc page if/when an admin have forgotten to add it. I know that some admins prefer if the protection template is never put on the /doc page, but I think it is unnecessary for users to spend time asking an admin to fix it when the user can simply use the /doc page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the section "Templates" has been added to this policy page during the last few months. That section currently among other things contains this text:

In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates.

It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself.

I disagree with both sentences. The first sentence make it sound like it is the protection template that adds the protection, which is a common misunderstanding that we should avoid. And in light of what I explained in my previous message above, I also would like to change the second sentence. Here is my suggestion for those two sentences:

Both semi and fully protected templates should always have the {{documentation}} template, so that non-admins and IP-uses can edit the documentation, add categories and add interwiki links. After a template has been protected {{pp-template}} should be added to it, so it displays a padlock and gets categorised as protected. Admins usually add {{pp-template}} at the bottom of the template page itself, in the <noinclude> area. If a protected template is missing the {{pp-template}} then non-admins can add it to the bottom of the /doc page of the template, in the <includeonly> area.

Since that is a bit long we could perhaps instead add it to Wikipedia:High-risk templates, and use a shorter version here that says something like this:

Semi and fully protected templates should always use the {{documentation}} and {{pp-template}} templates. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more on that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned four points, two that would be reason to put the protection template on the documentation page, and two that would be reason to add it to the template itself. While in your opinion #3 tips the scales in favor of putting it on the template itself, in my opinion the first two tip the scales in favor of putting it on the documentation page.

It is possible that our points of view are colored by the fact that you are an admin and I am not. I can not add a protection template to a protected template, and may put it only on a documentation page, while you can. Nevertheless, I do not think that putting a protection template should be the privilige of admins, and see that as an additional argument put them (generally) on the documentation page.

In addition, Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates is on my daily wikignoming list, and as the man working in the field (the only one doing this regularly, there is a bot also), I can tell you that admins make mistakes with protection templates, on a daily basis. Most of them I can fix, but often I have to ask an admin to do it.

Obviously, in the light of the fact that I disagree with you about the question where the protection template should be placed, I can not agree with the text you proposed.

If you think that the sentence "In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates" may lead to misunderstandings, then I have no problem with polishing it. Perhaps we should add "Since protection templates do not make a template protected, editors should not etc." Go ahead. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence that you added to this policy page:

It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself.

It goes against established praxis, and I am disputing your suggestion. So that sentence should not be in this policy, unless you achieve consensus for changing the praxis.

If I understand you right, you want the protection template to only be placed at one place. And I guess your reason for that is that you want everyone to know where to look for it, right? And right, then it has to be on the /doc page, since both admins and non-admins can edit the talk page. But I don't think it is a problem to have two possible places for it, and when possible I think it is better to have it on the protected template itself since that stops removals by users who think that will unprotect the template. By the way, I myself used to add the protection templates to the /doc pages when I wasn't an admin.

I wonder what kind of cases it is you can't fix? Since if the template is unprotected you can remove it from the template itself, and if the template is protected you can add it to the /doc page. Of course, if there is no {{documentation}} template that loads the /doc page, then that first has to be added to the protected template by an admin. But even if placing it on the /doc page was the rule you couldn't have placed it if the /doc page wasn't loaded.

By the way, long ago I suggested a solution that would save us most of this trouble: See Template talk:Pp-template#Merge and automate. But I haven't gotten any response from the guys that code and maintain the protection templates.

And I still suggest we use the shorter text I suggested above:

Semi and fully protected templates should always use the {{documentation}} and {{pp-template}} templates. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more on that.

That means we here don't tell where and how those templates should be placed, instead we should write that up at Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Of course, we still need to agree on what to write over there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't understand me correctly. It is not that I hold that all protection templates should be in one place. It is only that the documentation page is the more convenient location, for the reasons mentioned above. So unless there is a good reason to not have it there (like when one documentation page is used by several related templates which are not all protected) that is what we should advise (but no more than advise).

I don't think we should just refer to Wikipedia:High-risk templates. It is accepted practise to have a short paragraph on a subject in the main article, together with a link to the details on another page. I think the paragraph at present does a good job of summarising the content of Wikipedia:High-risk templates.

Your statement that "it goes against established praxis" is untrue, because a lot of templates have the protection template on the documentation page. I have no statistics, but I think at least between 30-40%. And I did seek consensus here. It was up here on the talk page before I made that edit. I am not at fault that only a few people partook in that discussion. May I remind you that you were on a prolonged wikibreak when this discussion took place. Anyway, it has been up here uncontested for a few months, after discussion, so I think that you would have to show clear consensus to the contrary in order to remove it. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched the archives of this page and it seems you are referring to the two discussions Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 10#Templates and Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 10#RfC: Should incorrectly placed protection templates be allowed in user 'sandboxes' (they are directly after each other on the same archive page). Or are there any other discussions that I should know about? The first "discussion" is only a message from you, that doesn't even contain the sentence about the /doc pages. And the second discussion is mostly about if the protection template may be left in the code when working on the code in user space sandboxes.

And regarding that discussion: The correct fix is to <--remark--> the template away, not deleting it from the user subpage. And even better would be to make the template automatically not categorise when on user subpages. Other users and admins should not delete things on a user's pages, that is very rude and tends to scare productive users away from Wikipedia. Admins have many times deleted or blanked my user pages when I was working with templates they didn't understand. Among other things they deleted {{pp-meta}} from my user page when I was building it. It was me who started out that template, but I almost gave up and left Wikipedia since my code got deleted several times while I was testing it in my userspace. So I know how upsetting it can be to have your work removed.

And you failed to answer most of my questions above. And I think you have misunderstood the reasons I list above for why we place {{pp-template}} on the templates themselves, instead of on the /doc pages. I only rarely see the protection template being placed on the /doc pages. And it was not my idea to place the protection templates on the templates themselves, instead that was established praxis long before I became admin. One of the reasons is that placing it on the /doc pages is to convenient, since then experience has shown us that users often remove it to try to unprotect templates. And as I explained, there is no problem for non-admins to remove it from the template page if the template is unprotected, since then the template is unprotected... So again, I ask what cases you mean you can't fix since you're not an admin?

Anyway, most of this will soon be moot, since as I kind of mentioned above, I am planning to update {{documentation}} so it automatically adds {{pp-template}} if a template is protected. And since {{documentation}} should be placed on all protected templates we won't have to think about {{pp-template}} any more.

So again, I would like to add this sentence:

Both semi and fully protected templates should always have the {{documentation}} template, so that non-admins and IP-uses can edit the documentation, add categories and add interwiki links..

Or perhaps with more details:

Both semi and fully protected templates should always have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, add categories and add interwiki links.

And I still wonder what you mean by this sentence:

In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates.

I don't understand what you want to say with it, so I can't suggest how it should be changed. The only thing I can say is that it is an unclear sentence that I think will be wrongly interpreted by many users. So what do you mean with it?

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now added code to {{documentation}} so it automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates. See more about that at Template talk:Documentation#Protection template and Template talk:Pp-template#Merge and automate.

So I would now like to remove the following two sentence from the "Templates" section, since they are no longer relevant:

In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates.

It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself.

And instead I would like to add something like this:

Semi and fully protected templates should always have the {{documentation}} template. It loads the unprotected /doc page, so that non-admins and IP-users can edit the documentation, add categories and add interwiki links. It also automatically adds {{pp-template}} to protected templates, which displays a small padlock in the upper right corner and categorizes the template as a protected template.

That's just a first draft of that text, it might need some tweaking or shortening, and I am not a native English speaker.

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a good idea. And the text you propose is also good. I would add to it: "In view of this, do not add a protection template to templates, unless they have no documentation page and are protected." Or something like that. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh you are right, I forgot there are exceptions: The stub and flag templates currently don't use {{documentation}}. So we should probably mention the exceptions in some way. Note that {{documentation}} inserts {{pp-template}} even if the /doc page has not yet been created. So I would like to change your text to something like this:

Only manually add {{pp-template}} to protected templates that don't use {{documentation}} (mostly the stub and flag templates).

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done - I have added the new text. But it might need some tweaking since I am not a native English Speaker.

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. There are actually a lot of templates that do not have a documentation page. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But most of the templates really should have the {{documentation}} template, so non-admins can add documentation, categories and interwikis later on, even if the /doc page currently doesn't exist.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the bulk of templates used in articles, that doesn't have protection, nor needs any explanations that would justify a documentation page. Categories and interwikis can be added without a documentation page. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding dispute tags through protection without consensus.

I think it happens, is reviewed broadly, and is found acceptable. I refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Inappropriate_editing_of_a_protected_page_by_Prodego. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think the action was unnecessary and served only to further inflame an already heated situation. There is no deadline and initiating a thread on the talk page prior to correcting The Wrong Version remains a best practice imo. –xeno^talk 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you. However, I think it's reasonably evident that we lost. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you too. And I don't think policy arguments should be won or lost at the admins' noticeboard (where most admins' main concern is to protect their colleague by finding arguments that whatever he/she may have done is perfectly all right).--Kotniski (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In particular, I've seen pages get protected as a result of an edit war over whether a dispute tag should be there. If we say that admins can add dispute tags without consensus, it means that in such situations, those who are edit warring to put the tag there will generally be favoured. (Maybe some would think that's a good thing - that disagreements among people editing Wikipedia are so important that everyone reading the relevant article needs to be told about them - but I think intelligent and considered use of these tags is what we should be supporting.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends what is meant by "without consensus" - in particular where some people dispute that there is a dispute, and where tags are added and removed as a result prior to protection. It's complicated by differing views about the status of tags - some have tried to argue that tags are not part of the encyclopedic text (though obviously they affect its interpretation). In general, in the absence of clarifying these issues muchly, it seems best to follow xeno's advice above, and discuss tags on talk, just like anything else, when the page is protected. Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If a page is protected because of a dispute, should the addition of a tag stating just that be problematic? I don't see the logic here. I am asking specifically about dispute tags only. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a tag stating just that (that the page is protected because of disputes). But I don't think that tags saying things like "The neutrality of this section is disputed" should be added automatically just because someone wants to.--Kotniski (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the page protection tag. The clear consensus over the ANI section I referenced was that adding {{NPOV}} did not requre consensus because it was "obviously appropriate." Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be in a situation where the "sentence" Likewise, adding a dispute tag, which helps pointing other editors to the subject under discussion. keeps being alternately added and removed. Can we have some sort of decision on this: what is actually meant here (a verb would help for starters), and do we agree with it? (As I've said above, I don't think that views expressed in an admins' noticeboard thread should be taken as a basis for maknig policy.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How many times do we need to see admins edit tags in through protection without so much as a slap on a wrist before policy becomes descriptive rather than proscriptive? Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it happen a lot? I mean controversially and without consensus, since otherwise it would just be an example of the situations described in the previous sentence, not something additional.--Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with "Sometimes Adminstrators have added dispute tag, such as {{NPOV}} without consensus, though this is often a controvercial action." Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems acceptable.--Kotniski (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How can adding a dispute tag be controversial? Debresser (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Party A - "This article is not NPOV because it fails to adress my theory that Sword-wielding Skeletons were the reason the Greeks won the Peleponisian war." Party B - "Are you kidding me?" Party A - "Nope! I'll edit war about it!" Replace "Sword-wielding Skeletons were the reason the Greeks won the Peleponisian war," with whatever you want. Here are some examples - "Cold Fusion is real." "Global warming is a fraud." "More guns, less crime!" Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. In that case I withdraw my objection. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the sentence as proposed by Hipocrite.--Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Better use "sometimes" or "possibly" than "often". "Often" is a word that in articles we would tag with {{Citation needed}} or {{Clarify}}. Debresser (talk)

"Sometimes" sounds OK to me.--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I can't tell what information is being added here. This smacks of "I saw something bad happen, so I'm gonna fix the policy so it can never happen again" syndrome. If there's something meaningful we're trying to say here, there has got to be a better way of putting it. causa sui× 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  Er, other way around. I saw something bad happen, I saw it protested, I saw the protest fail, I revised policy to match what happened. Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

  This is a bit creepy, don't you think? And I'm still not sure what this addition is supposed to be saying to the rest of us. :\ causa sui× 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Protecting closed AfDs

Does anyone think it should be standard practice to protect all closed AfDs? They already contain instructions that say Please do not modify it and No further edits should be made to this page. So why should they be editable do anyone, including IPs?

I just came across a long-closed AfD, and it has some vandalism on it that is perhaps a test edit or something by an IP. The vandalism has remained there for almost a year and has not been removed. Pageview stats show the page has been viewed 9 times since the day it was vandalized, and not at all in some months. But this vandalism has not been removed.

Many of these pages are not watched by anyone, or even if they are watched, they are mostly ignored, so this illustrates how harmful leaving them unprotected can be.

This particular case of vandalism is plain old silliness and nothing terrible. But theoretically, one could vandalize a closed AfD in this manner and put all kinds of spam, disparaging remarks, even hate speech there, and it can go unnoticed, and meanwhile, be transferred robotically to other internet sites.

What do others think? Sebwite (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Kotniski (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No need. They are closed. That is - unneeded. We keep them for the record. If anything happened to them ever since, that will show in the history. rotection is overkill. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its a great idea, but one unlikely to get much support as there seems to be a huge dislike/fear of protecting pages, even though it adds no server overhead. I'd personally like to see all closed AfDs protected, any on-going AfD being hit with socks/meats automatically semi-protected, and article deleted through AfD protected from recreation without going through DRV for an admin, but that also won't happen. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The other things here you mentioned I see problems with:

1. A lot of articles that get proposed for deletion are created by newbies. Semi-protecting them would often bar the creator from commenting.
2. Deleted pages should NOT automatically be creation-protected. Very often, following a page's deletion, either the original creator or someone else solves the original issues a page had, then is able to recreate it without any problems. This could happen either months later, or on the very same day! Or else, someone may want to create an unrelated article bearing the same title, and this would hinder doing so. Creation protection should be LIMITED to articles that one obsessively recreates multiple times exactly as they are following deletion, and in most cases, it should expire after a certain amount of time (perhaps 30 days) has lapsed.

A good compromise if full-protection cannot be extended to all closed AfDs is to semi-protect all of them. In the example I cited, the page was vandalized by an IP. Sebwite (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The major problem, off hand, is that AFDs (especially recently-closed ones) may have DRV notices usefully added, alerting people still watching that page. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - protecting all closed AFDs is an overreaction and will simply add to the already length list of pages that are indefinite semi-protected without good reason. –xeno^talk 15:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is a case-by-case issue, if there is a particular AFD that is having problems after it is closed, it can be protected through the regular processes. I don't see much benefit to protecting them all as it's not that big of a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose this. Debresser pretty much gave the reason above: we only keep AFDs for transparency/record keeping, and if anything looks funny you can easily check the history and select the version by the closing admin. These aren't part of the "public face" like main/template/image. It meets none of the criteria for semiprotection in the first place, and the spirit of s-p is to prevent editing by anon/newbies in cases where blocking would not work (socks, dynamic ip range, etc).

So from what I can tell, you found 1 AFD with vandalism. And for this nonexistent problem you propose using a sledgehammer? If this is RFPP I'd say the same thing I've always said, just revert the vandalism. Not every case of vandalism needs to be solved with protection. Actually, most cases of vandalism don't need protection. If we really need to look at another project example, the ArbCom doesn't even protection their old cases. If an AFD is suffering from major vandalism, then protect it just like you'd protect an article. But protecting all of them is just not needed. -Royalguard11(T) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Pp-semi-blp is not working correctly

I have twice raised concerns on Template talk:Pp-semi-blp about Template:Pp-semi-blp not working correctly, though I have not received a response. This is probably because the template is not heavily watched, so I am bringing this up here. This template places pages into either Category:Wikipedia temporarily semi-protected biographies of living people (for those with an expiry date specified) and Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected biographies of living people (those protected indefinitely). However, even with a numerical expiry specified (e.g. expiry=10 February 2010) it still categories pages into the indef category, example. The only page in the temp. category is Rita Cosby, which is actually protected indefinitely, with expiry=indefinite. Can anyone more familiar with template code explain this and possibly fix it? Thanks in advance. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Fixed, thank you for bringing this to our attention. –xeno^talk 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

lebron is bad at basketball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.186.162 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

((pp-full-indef))

Resolved

 – both templates now deleted

Today Nickidewbear created {{pp-full-indef}} and added it to the {{protection templates}} which lists the standard protection templates. I have now reverted that addition due to the following reasons:

• I think adding templates to that set should first be discussed somewhere and a consensus reached. The best place for such a discussion is probably this talk page.
• The look of message boxes here at Wikipedia is standardised, and the protection templates are a part of that standard: They use {{pp-meta}} which in turn uses {{mbox}}, and they use standardised padlock icons. And their text content is to some extent standardised. And they also have some standard technical features. {{pp-full-indef}} does not conform to those standards at all.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe policy even allows for full indefinite protection anyways (except for WP:OFFICE). So the template shouldn't be there because it won't be used. -Royalguard11(T) 00:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Only registered users who agree to adhere to a neutral point of view when editing and revising this page may edit and/or revise it. All other editing and revising will be undone promptly and as swiftly as possible". I'm not sure if that's a usual requirement. Perhaps it should be redirected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless that is supposed to go on the talk page, it's moot anyway. Noone except admins can edit through full protection (and they know the deal anyway). Viridae^Talk 01:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, after some looking around I see that Nickidewbear also created the sub-template {{pp-protected/nazi party}}. And he used both of his "home made" protection templates on Nazi Party to try to "protect" that article. See that articles history.

I have no experience in handling such things, so I hope some of you guys can handle this.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted the full indef one per WP:CSD#T2, took the nazi one to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Short-term protection to preserve clarity

I am in need of some advice. After a lengthy process of consultation an RfC is likely commence later this month to assess community support for implementing Wikipedia:Community de-adminship. Experience suggests that the ensuing debate may become heated from time to time, but the discussion will certainly become confused if editors try to amend the proposed policy during the discussion. The proposed policy is currently at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship and the question is: is it in order to protect this page for the duration of the RfC as a pre-emptive measure? My guess is that in the absence of a specific problem such as edit-warring that the answer is "no", but the question came up and I thought it worth checking. Ben MacDui 17:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase the question. As there is no specific prohibition of such a step in the policy, perhaps the answer is that it would be quite acceptable if the reasons were clearly spelled out on the talk page? Ben MacDui 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's no specific "prohibition" of this on the policy because that's not what this policy is for. We want you to think critically, take every situation individually, do your best, and then answer for what you've done. We do not want to "clearly spell out the reasons" why you might ever be 'allowed' to protect a page. causa sui× 19:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, although I meant "if the reasons were clearly spelled out on the talk page of WP:CDA". Ben MacDui 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive move protection

The move protection section states that reasons for such protection include "highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved, such as the Administrators' noticeboard". Does this include article pages? I just came across the Brass article, which is move protected although it has never been moved. Is this common practice? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was. A quick trawl through NawlinWiki's protection log around that time reveals that he did somewhere around 200 such protections at that time. I don't know, maybe if you ask him you'll get an answer why. I'd like to hear what others think, since move protection shouldn't be preemptive, but it's really unintrusive compared to regular protection. -Royalguard11(T) 16:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this page is unlikely to be moved without discussion. Sometimes when fulfilling a pp-semi request on a high profile page, I will add move=sysop as well if it is unlikely to be moved without discussion. Just to stave off move page vandalism. –xeno^talk 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It doesn't do any harm to simply leave move protection in place on an article that has no good reason to be moved. Brass is brass, there's no other logical name for it's article, and "certain persons" from a certain other website have in the past made many many attacks consisting mostly of infantile page move vandalism, I would guess that all those move protections are fallout from that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment_by_Dank

Thoughts? Check out the link to the previous discussion at WP:AN. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In my own opinion, when a page is fully protected nobody should edit it unless there is consensus to make a certain change. Admins should not edit unless asked by those who have come to a consensus. Obviously an uninvolved admin would be preferable, but if there is consensus then I don't really think it makes a difference. Current policy (I believe) says the current page is always protected (unless it's blatantly wrong, blanked, vandalized, or something in that vein), and history dictates that it will always be the wrong version. Trying to add "stable version" to the policy would just invite a wheel war over which version is the "stable" version. People should be able to handle the wrong version for a couple days.

I don't normally follow ArbCom. I prefer to say away from it. -Royalguard11(T) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a preference which way we do it, I think either way could work, as long as everyone's clear. The current policy isn't clear at all ... first it says usually protect the current version, then it says (at WP:PREFER) "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Even more fun ... it says not to protect the current version if it goes against content policy (and gives examples) ... but one page being discussed at ArbCom for editing-through-protection is WP:BLP ... which is a content policy, so anything that wasn't in the previous stable version (and BLP is a very stable page) automatically goes against content policy, or at least, the previous consensus concerning content policy. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's way more complicated then I realized (I tend to stay away from BLP too, I'm not a real big fan of the special treatment given to a certain class of articles, but that's another discussion). I guess if you can find an old version that was stable for a time (unprotected) the it could be unbiased. As for policy related stuff, we'll just let them fight it out in ArbCom then and implement whatever solution they come up with I guess. -Royalguard11(T) 16:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The permalink to my comment at RFAR is here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarify/change WP:PREFER

Currently the WP:PREFER section (second paragraph of the "Content disputes" section) reads:

“ 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. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, 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 which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above). ”

I want to propose the following wording (addition emphasized):

“ 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. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. If the page in question is one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, the previous version should always be restored. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above). ”

The reasoning for this proposal is probably quite obvious and common sense but I think it wouldn't hurt to say it clearly: Policies and guidelines are the main tools for all editors handling almost every aspect of Wikipedia. As such, their pages should always reflect the current consensus. If someone or some people edit-war in favor of their preferred version, the page should be protected and reset to the previous version, so all non-involved editors can work with the consensus as it exists at this time. Then, if discussion shows that consensus supported the previous changes, it can be changed. As I said, it should not be necessary to add it explicitly since policies and guidelines already have a tag that claims them to be "widely accepted" (policy) / "generally accepted" (guideline) standards but clarifying that this should also be the version to be shown during a full protection can't hurt, can it? Regards SoWhy 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually like reverting back because it invites a wheel war over which version was "stable", but policies are different. Yes, if a change is made and warred over, the "stable" version is usually obvious and could be reverted back to. -Royalguard11(T) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also see #Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment_by_Dank, 3 sections above. The permalink to my comment at RFAR is here. Policy pages are usually stable enough so that this suggestion of reverting to the "previous" version would work; I don't have a position on whether this approach would work for guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding the new sentence. Adding an extra sentence about the policies and guidelines seems like instruction creep to me. I think most admins are smart enough to understand what to revert to if/when they protect a policy or guideline. And the suggested sentence can easily be wrong, since the previous version might also be the wrong one. Instead the sentence that already is in the text says it well:

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

pre-emptive measures

I changed the semi-protection section of this policy to read:

• In most cases, semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. However, there are limited instances where semi-protection can be used pre-emptively to protect biographies of living persons before and during high-profile events that have a history of drawing vandalism.

It makes sense to allow a little freedom to protect BLP's before and during high profile events that may generate controversy. A little background can be found here [3]. RxS (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes -strongly agree, especially with the rate google picks up on these changes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly agree with this change, as it's common sense to keep our most vulnerable articles out of harms way. Although I get the feeling that this change may be reverted... If it does I'll probably drop a note, but otherwise I'll stay out of it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I support this change for as long as FlaggedRevs continues to be unavailable on this project. Happy‑melon 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, seeing where this comes from, I must withdraw that statement. The line for pre-emptive protection is paper-thin, and protecting swathes of articles just because their subjects are taking part in some major event is not a closed group. In the UK we have a general election coming up; does that mean all British politicians deserve semi-protection? One can probably find a qualifying event for any BLP subject still active in their professional field. I'd have no problem with semi-protecting any article that's been a target for event-related drama before, including pre-emptively. Protecting all Winter Olympics contestants whether or not there is cause for concern crosses my personal line. I wouldn't undo such protection, but would view it (and think that it should be viewed) as mandated by IAR rather than this policy. Happy‑melon 23:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's what this says: ...that have a history of drawing vandalism'. The tipping point isn't just taking part in a major event, but one that has a history of troubling BLP vandalism. I'm sure the wording can be worked on but I think we do need this latitude. RxS (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's precisely the point. You cannot justifiably tar every subject connected with an event with the same brush like that. If censii have a "history of drawing vandalism", are you going to use that to justify protecting every British biography next year? The article itself must have a history of vandalism, which precludes protecting whole swathes of articles, because each one must be looked at individually. The 'safeguards' below are irrelevant, because they do not address the core of the concern which is the creation of a 'carte blanche' for huge sets of BLPs to be arbitrarily semi'd. The next time the superbowl rolls around, semi poor old Nate Kaeding by all means. But extending that protection to every connected article is counter to our goals and principles. Happy‑melon 08:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Very near the top of our goals and principles is aggressively protecting BLPs. Recent events and Arbcom actions have underscored this. We lose nothing by pre-emptively protecting a BLP with a history of BLP vandalism. RxS (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, we risk losing new editors who actually do wish to contribute constructively, and are instead turned away. We don't even semi-protect TFAs specifically because of this goal. Rather than pre-emptively making a mockery of the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it might be better to set up a centralized watchlist to note articles likely to receive vandalism so as to help put more eyes on such articles and revert or protect as required. Resolute 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Very near the top of our goals and principles is aggressively protecting BLPs. How can you reconcile that with the ultimate goal of the encyclopedia itself? One of the founding principles is the ability to edit most articles without registration. Not "some classes of less important articles", but "most articles". -Royalguard11(T) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

←Tell you what: I'll be fine with this if one additional sentence is added:

• In most cases, semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. However, there are limited instances where semi-protection can be used pre-emptively to protect biographies of living persons before and during high-profile events that have a history of drawing vandalism. The use of pre-emptive protected must be noted in the protection log, and such protection should be removed immediately upon anyone's request.

The extra sentence is necessary as a safety valve. If this kind of thing goes into effect, then unprotection should generally be extremely easy. No one should be required to jump through hoops by being required to asking/waiting for the protecting admin either, especially since there are likely to be mass protections made using this provision. You guys are here to help those of us who are content contributors (including IP users), so be sure not to get too much in the way of that.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I want to register my strong objection to both preemptive protections and the special-class rights that continue to be heaped upon BLP articles. It seems that the spirit of Wikipedia has become void when dealing with BLP articles. -Royalguard11(T) 05:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPs already hold a special class, there's no going back on that. RxS (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support that. Viridae^Talk 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• I also subscribe to the last two comments. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but when it comes to protection, BLP or not is irrelevant. If the article in question had no vandalizing edits, there is no reason to protect it, neither preemptively nor afterwards. Protection is to deal with cases where reverting fails, not to restrict editing before something happened. The current (changed) wording allows (as happy-melon points out correctly) a protection of a large number of articles because they share a certain event in common. The "safety valve" that Ohm's law added does not change it. It rather turns the policy around, i.e. makes it "we protect and you can request it to be removed" rather than "anyone can edit but you can request it to be protected". The latter is the spirit of the policy and rightly so. The former is a perversion that is not justified by the spirit of any policy involved - not even WP:BLP. Quote: Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect affected pages. However, it is generally more desirable in the medium and long term to obtain compliance with this policy by editors, so that the article may be kept open for editing.). As such, even WP:BLP says that protection should not occur before such material has been added. Regards SoWhy 14:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The spirit of WIkipedia has always been "anyone can edit", with protection being the last resort when a page is experiencing large amounts of vandalism or a revert war. To turn it around and say "protection is the default" and you must "ask for permission to edit" is completely contrary to the idea of "anyone can edit". -Royalguard11(T) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. What people don't understand is that these are real people. We have a service, both legally and ethically, to not let them down and get their character defamed when we know the defamation is absolutely going to happen. The maxim of "anyone can edit" doesn't mean squat here; going on the principle that "anyone can edit" would cause massive damage to the Barack Obama or the George W. Bush articles. The waiting game is downright stupid and only increases our liability, because we knew that the libellious edits would be made yet we did nothing. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fortunately, Wikipedia does not work on the assumption of bad faith. Resolute 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's fortunate that we expose encyclopedia subjects to libel? With the amounts of edits we expect around the Super Bowl, the probability that we will have libellous information added about the players is very close, if not equal to, 1. AGF isn't a suicide pact. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted change

I've reverted the change mentioned above as I can see no sign of discussion being made to support such a policy change. In fact, the Village Pump discussion related to this very issue wrt football players in the Superbowl has revealed a striking lack of consensus. I do not accept that one editor, or a small group, has the right to unilaterally make this kind of change, and would suggest a wider discussion before any such changes are made. Resolute 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe your reversion is incorrect. Discussion there and here, while not unanimous, seems supportive enough. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means, please tell me where "supportive enough" has been determined the acceptable standard for changing policy. Never mind that the supports in that discussion all centre around assumptions of bad faith, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have failed to adequately explain why current policies have failed. Resolute 03:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Resolute's revert. This is the encyclopedia that any one should be able to edit. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) should not be an exception. BLPs are in article space, and there we only protect after vandalism has occurred.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar BLP section in the guideline Wikipedia:High-risk templates. I feel uncomfortable with that section.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I just noticed we had already discussed it on its talkpage before, and another user had already suggested a good solution. So I fixed it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected file pages

Non-admins can't update the description pages of protected images. This means that such pages usually lack links to other versions of the image, and they lack categorization etc. This can also lock out the uploader himself from updating the description, which can be very frustrating and might discourage further image uploads. (I know from personal experience.)

I have a solution for this. It is the same solution that we have used for protected templates for years now. I would like to start using and promote using the {{documentation}} template on protected File pages. I have done the necessary code updates so all the technical stuff is in place. See the technical details, a live example, and discuss it over at Wikipedia talk:Template documentation#File pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct?

I saw that somebody added "Semi-protected pages are also move-protected." to the section about semi-protection. Is that so? Debresser (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's optional so it's not correct, but also the default move protection for semi-protection restricts moves to autoconfirmed users. Since only autoconfirmed users can move pages in the first place, there is no additional protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So I'll remove it then. Debresser (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't know that you can choose for it to also be move-protected or not. Keyboard mouse (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A call to stop unilateral indefinite protections

I have seen many instances of admins inappropriately semi-protecting editing of articles indefinitely. I'm sure they did it in good faith, but they showed a lack of understanding of the policy and of the implications of their action.

In very many cases I tested, if a random editor had requested such protections at WP:RFP, their requests would have been denied, or in some cases only a short-term protection would have been granted. The proof is that, when I challenged such protections at WP:RUP, admins who are more aware and understanding of the policy ended up lifting the protection.

Situations vary. Here are a few examples taken from from a 5-minutes look at the protection log

• Madagascar (1994 film) was semi-protected indefinitely following 2 episodes of vandalism, months apart in its entire history (2 years). The protection comment was, Persistent sock vandalism. Please consult me or User:AnmaFinotera before unprotecting. A mistake?
• 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series was semi-protected indefinitely. Is anyone really going to care forever about it?
• Ēostre's protection comment was, "erratic anon". It is not clear to me what happened there.

And here are two case studies from my experience

• Compare this (unilateral) discussion with a peer review of the case.
• Compare this (unilateral) discussion with a peer review of the case.

I don't want to do any finger-pointing referring to specific examples, but I have also definitely seen many cases of conflict of interest, whereby admins would semi-protect indefinitely an article, so that they could better edit/control it in peace without being bothered by (infrequent) IP vandalism. In some instances, it was even due to content dispute involving the protecting admin.

The policies/guidelines most commonly violated in my experience are:

• [Indefinite semi may be applicable to] pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy. - In many cases, disruptive activity was not heavy nor persistent by any stretch of imagination, and the other clause (violations of content policy) did not apply.
• [...] nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. - See my comment on article ownership above.
• The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism. - This key aspect is often disregarded.
• Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously - Very often ignored.
• The only way to determine if ongoing semi-protection is still necessary is to remove the protection and see if the vandalism resumes at previous levels. - It is in my experience extremely rare, for an admin who unilaterally semi-protected an article indefinitely, to go and revisit their decision and give the article another try. In most cases indefinite protections are left there and forgotten about. In fact, this part of the policy begs the question if indefinite protections are ever justified (see below).

So anyway, here is my first proposal. How about banning unilateral indefinite protections and enforce a peer review at WP:RP? In emergency cases, admins can always unilaterally protect for a few days, until peers give their second opinions.

As mentioned above, I would actually further argue that indefinite semi-protection is only very rarely justified. In fact, is it ever? Think about it, indefinite means forever. That's infinitely longer than 1 year. How many things change in one year? Will the article still be a common vandalism target? Is it such a pain to roll the protection every year, if necessary? "Indefinite" is also infinitely longer than 100 years! You see where I'm getting at.

My second, stronger proposal is therefore to limit the maximum protection time limit to 100 years. That would be appropriate for the heaviest foreseeable BLP vandalism. We should offer granular time spans, say from 1 hour up to 100 years, and make sure they are used correctly. Peer-review enforcement could kick in for terms longer than, say, one year.

I'm looking forward to hear your opinions. Thanks. 124.100.40.131 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as your second proposal goes, i think you are looking at the word indefinite and seeing the word infinite. Indefinite protection merely means that no end is specified, not an intention to protect it ad infinitum. Unprotection can be requested and implemented at any time, indefinite protection does not mean that an article need remain protected forever, rather that the article should not be become unprotected without further human intervention. Anyone is free to request unprotection of an article at any time. Mfield (Oi!) 06:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the user though on some aspects. I've always wondered what would come about of just randomly protecting an article with little to no vandalism, and this is apparently it. In a way, indefinite and infinite do have interchangable meanings, so I can see where some confusion might stem from. I think that the user is correct though in stating that some people are a bit too trigger happy when protecting things, as it can really screw over the average editor who hasn't made an account here. I have to disagree on th 100 year thing though. If anything, it should max out at 5 years. From the looks of it 124, you seem like you would be a great asset here. Have you put any thought into creating an account? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, {{editsemiprotected}}, and the ability to register your own account are all the accommodation needed for an IP editor to edit a semi-protected page. Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" no longer translates to "anyone can edit anything, anonymously"--and that's simply a fact of life. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It should also be understood that "indefinite" does not mean "forever". It means "with no set expiry time". as mentioned above, there is RFPP to request unprotection of a page and the editprotected / editsemiprotected templates to use on the talk page of a protected article. Of course, you could alway create an account. After 4 days and 10 edits you become autoconfirmed and can the edit semi-protected pages. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series? Christ on a bike. We need that deleted, not protected! Guy (Help!) 09:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• If your proposal, IP124, is to combat the issue of indefinitely-semi-d articles, do you really thinking that placing a limit of a century is going to make a difference to you?! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I generally prefer to seek some review either before or after setting indef semi on any article; doesn't need to be a big deal, but I prefer the sanity check. Widely used templates and such I treat a bit differently, since the potential disruption seems to be higher. Also for what it's worth, I inquired with the protecting admin about Madagascar (1994 film). – Luna Santin (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As somebody who works almost daily with protection templates I know more or less what is going on in the field, and I agree that there are many articles with indefinite protection that have had me wonder why anybody would do that. Indefinite protection should almost never be necessary. I personally would say that 1 year should be the maximum any article would have to be protected. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "almost never". People think it's fine since they'll "remember to undo it later", except that time and again they either forget or retire before getting 'round to it. Certainly these actions can be reviewed, but given that semi-protection doesn't typically inconvenience the people who know how to complain about it, how often does that actually happen? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I can specifically speak to your first example. WP:Long term abuse/Bambifan101 has details, this was one of many protections designed to stop of the most persistent and notorious trolls in the history of Wikipedia. One day this lunatic will finally find somewhere else to go bother people and these particular protections won't be needed anymore. Indefinite does not necessarily mean forever, and any user is free to appeal a protection at any time. I strongly disclike the idea of more un needed regulation of the protection policy. Frankly it seems to me to be one of the more smoothly functioning areas of WP admin work. Indef protection is actually fairly rare in my experience, but when it is done it's usually after numerous shorter protection periods have failed to stop problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• All protections are unilateral, indefinite does not mean forever, this is not going to happen. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Riddle me this, then: why do we have expiry times for protection at all? For that matter, why do we have expiry times for blocks? It couldn't be because we generally want these things to expire at some point, could it? Imagine a wiki where every single block is indefinite has to be turned off by hand. Sounds stupid, right? Hmm! – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• It would be nice to see a review of indef semi protections. Many are necessary and justified on BLP grounds, for example Brad Pitt or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom but indefinite protections imposed without previous, escalating, periods of protection should be strongly discouraged unless there is a very good reason- rather like editors are not usually indefinitely blocked (VOAs and socks excluded) without previous blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies.

To all who picked up and tried to rectify my examples: although that wasn't really the main idea, thank you, and please continue the activity. The list is ever-growing.

Many pointed out that there are ways to appeal and to end the protection prematurely. To me, this feels as if a "concenrned citizen" researched and documented an often-abused police power that allows officers to hand out unfair, unconstitutional fines on the spot, they presented their case to their member of parliament and as a response they got, "So what, the victims can always appeal".

Inappropriate indefinite protections, in a way, are actually worse, because they damage the whole project, not just one editor.

Also, for one editor that does register an account or finds out that they can ask for a change or appeal, how many good edits have we lost? How many potential editors?

"Indefinite" does in practice, and in very many cases, mean "infinite". If you are willing to argue that the term of a six-months protection is six months (even though it could finish earlier if appealed) but the term of an indefinite protection is not infinite but unspecified, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Seriously, when and in what way is an indefinite so much better than a 1-year protection? Would it really be such a burden to roll (if necessary)?

In any case, it is plain to me that this policy is not working as intended, and although this is not damaging your short-term activity of administrators or editors, it is damaging Wikipedia in the long term.

What are the objections to my proposal(s), or what other ways forward do you see?

Thank you 124.100.43.75 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have, in the past, done unprotection runs by going thru WP:INDEFSEMI. I would encourage other admins to do the same. Be sure to keep the article on your watchlist, though and tread lightly around the ones that were done for BLP and suchlike. –xeno^talk 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Good link, thanks. Semi-protection is definitely overused on Wikipedia, but I'm still deeply suspicious of solving problems through added bureaucracy and rules. Increasing awareness of tools like this, in a culture where it becomes understood that indefinite semi protection is to be used in only the most extreme cases (Barack Obama, etc) ought to be our first line of defense. causa sui× 16:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly agree that a culture of avoiding needless protection is a must; I'm just not sure how we're going to get there by doing... well, nothing? If indef semiprot is only supposed to be used in response to serious, repeat problems, then someone facing a serious, repeat problem will not be turned away by the thought of a mere noticeboard post that will more than likely be forgotten in ten minutes -- someone turned away by such a simple step probably doesn't really need that level of protection set, in my eyes. Three months, six months, twelve months, all of these durations are likely to solve most problems and are, in my opinion, much better for the health of the community, so we should encourage people to use them instead of indef. I don't feel like that's asking much, really. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Interesting link, thanks. Helpfully a numbered list, too. It mentions it's four months old. The amount of articles plus redirects is 2057; the Special:ProtectedPages link the OP gave set to display that amount per page allows a quick method of finding out how much that's increased. By a line count the next page lists a further 435. Not necessarily the same pages of course. –Whitehorse1 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the proposals above, I think that one thing anyone can do is to improve admin education and raise awareness.

When posting in user talk pages my requests to reconsider inappropriate indefinite protections because in breach of policy, I have come across many an admin claiming to be "full aware" of the policy and compliant with it. As soon as I posted the same request to WP:RUP, however, they stood corrected.

More of this activity can't be a bad thing for Wikipedia. Also, you don't have to be an admin, or even a registered user to do it.

In fact, I think it's more effective to do it as an IP, or a non-autoconfirmed account. This is likely to get an even more adverse initial reaction from the admin, who is likely to have a dim view of lowly IPs - a related issue. (I even bumped into an admin who protected their own talk page to "Prevent anon talk page trolling"!)

Have fun! :) (Notwithstanding the proposals above) 122.26.96.185 (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole encyclopedia is quite likely to be protected soon (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll), so most of the foregoing discussions will become moot.--Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I can see the concern about articles that someone might want to edit. But may I take it that you have no problem with indefinite salting of attack pages of the ????? ???? is Gay variety? ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point, thanks. Yes, I was referring to edit protection only. I have changed the opening sentence to make it clearer. 122.26.96.185 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Indefinite" certainly expires at just as soon or far off in the future as "infinite" would; an infinite or permanent semi-protection applied to a page would be perpetual. That a setting can be disabled/reversed does not affect this. It is never-ending, unceasing. Accordingly, any difference between the two is just semantics.
  While background reading, I looked at some of the essays about IPs and editing, like wp:human. One highlighted how one static IP 68.39.174.238 contributed over 3 years, before migrating a year ago to 76.117.247.55 where it remains today. It mentioned they were nominated for adminship; coincidentally, it was speedy-deleted in the last couple've weeks ago along with its redirect a few days later. Anyone here know how come?
  The part of the proposal, irrespective of any arbitrary max chosen, concerning review, looks sensible. We are talking about changes that affect unregistered users and new contributors most of all. It's possibly ironic, that looking at the list "Newbie" jumped straight from several months to indefinite, and remains semi-protected two years on. –Whitehorse1 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Some pages are such perennial vandal targets that indef is warranted. Especially some that attract BLP-violating type vandalism. Nigger, slut, and bitch come to mind. I've just unprotected newbie, let's see how long until we get an IP vandalizing it. –xeno^talk 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've worked on, directly and indirectly, pages with a v. strong case that indef is warranted. BLPs come to mind. There are always exceptions. –Whitehorse1 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I think that BLPs are actually a clear example where indefinite is not warranted, since they are bound to become non-BLPs, give it a few years.

  "Nigger", let alone "newbie" or "leet", are other good examples of why indefinite is hardly ever warranted, and how our perception of infinity is distorted. Wikipedians of the 1950s would have (inappropriately) indefinitely semi-protected Negro, which is currently not edit-protected.

  In any case, I remain unconvinced that testing and rolling protections every <max_protection_period_of_choice> is such an admin burden. 114.146.94.81 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  People aren't immortal, true. For one of the BLPs I was thinking of semi-prot'ing for 3–4 or 5 years is not unacceptable. An alternative of a review after 1.5 yrs – maintaining the existing protection while discussing may be an option as well. –Whitehorse1 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  Completely agreed, allowing articles to become unprotected every couple of years isn't going to be a great administrator burden. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I guess in the case of office actions and libel notices etc then to block pages indefinitely would be a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Coming late to the party - I have come across many exceptions - the issue often is Featured or otherwise large articles - many even with semiprotection erode over time. The issue often is sneaky section blanking, or two (or three) ips in succession before a revert and then material gets lost. I recalled when we saved Humpback whale at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Humpback Whale/archive1 and a whole chunk of it had been missing for months. schizophrenia and lion are two others that even with semiprotection require regular review, unprotection quickly sees the revert cycle resuming on a daily or more frequent basis. The detail in these articles makes it a highly time-consuming process. The frequency of vandalism means reverters are reverting more quickly and newbies and ips get bitten and so on too. Time is limited. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that is a difficult issue I guess, but why would semi-protecting them for a year at a time be an issue? Or if its really an issue that its protected forever couldn't it be discussed with a group of admins? This is only about preventing unilateral decisions of semi-protection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have written two high-profile articles, an FA To Kill a Mockingbird and a GA (Lesbian) that, if gone unprotected, will deteriorate without constant vigilance within days. TKaM is the most widely read fiction book by secondary school students in the US. I really hope the protection for Lesbian is simply blindingly obvious. Some articles need indefinite protection. I would not be opposed to an effort to take another look at indef semi protected articles on a regular basis, but it's simply stupid to default unprotect articles that will obviously attract an overwhelming number of vandals. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If the articles are obvious to be protected (like the two examples you've bought up) I think the idea of doing a review of protection on a fairly regular basis without actually unprotecting them would be a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how's this - indefinite does not equal infinite. I (and hopefully other admins) will generally unprotect if asked, as there are then at least two eyes watching it. I much prefer this to a year protection, because I can bet that the protection just runs out and no-one is watching....until a few months later. All it takes is two vandals close together and the first hit is often unreverted. There is also more sneaky vandalism, where odd numbers are subsitituted into measurements and dates, and this sort of cleverness has been discussed off site. Anyway, this is my 2c. We have to figure how to allocate time effectively, and I do feel that for many Good and Featured articles we're moving from growth to maintenance. We also watch teh talk pages and respond if ips request changes there. No system is perfect, it is about how to get the best bang for your buck really in terms of volunteer time and article quality. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think there is the risk that the admin who protected the page leaves or something, but I see your point about annual semi-protection. On balance I think a review of indefinitely protected articles every 12-18 months or something would probably be better than a year of semi-protection. Theres likely to be a reasonable number of indefinitely protected semi's that would be worthy of unprotection, and if they were reviewed then I guess you'd need several people to care enough to get them unlocked and they'd all be watching the article at that point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the discussion here has been about vandalism. Perhaps we should reduce vandalism by giving confirmed vandals longer blocks. I'd support:

• First block of 1 week; if the vandal persists, block for a month; then 1 year; then indef. Note that the assumed vandal should usually be able to request a review of the block.
• If the vandal persists after a block, increase the level of warning to the vandal, e.g. use level 2 in the 2nd cycle, 3rd in the 2nd cycle, etc. - and eventually block the vandal without further warning. --Philcha (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that IP addresses are dynamic so it could be a different person each time. I guess that will change with IPv6. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

another reason to avoid blocking ips.... remember the ruckus after this one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Eraserhead1, if an admin has left the building and someone wants a protection reviewed, then I am sure said admin will not be fussed if others review as they see fit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Particularly in reference to these high traffic articles that get between 2,000 and 5,000 views a day, unprotection, even for a week, allows hundreds of edits to be made a day from as many locations. Some articles simply need to be indefinitely protected. I'm not sure how this conversation got to this point, but if this is a seed for a movement to re-assess indefinitely semi-protected articles, I suggest asking the talk page of the article first, taking into account the quality of the article (GA or FA class), and asking the editors with the most edits to the article their opinions. Certainly any article where indef semi-protection is removed should be watched for several days or weeks following the lifting of semi-protection. --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

At least according to the Good articles page, the total amount of good and featured articles/lists is in excess of 12 and a half thousand (about 1 in 250). Default protecting that many articles is probably unwise. I appreciate you probably weren't suggesting *any* GA/FA article be prot'd. All the same, I feel hesitant about factoring article grades into considering for protection. As you know, edit count on an article is no guarantee of how much an editor contributed. It can help give an indication though, which is why the top contributors were generally informed during GA sweeps reviews; I think in FA reviews whether main-by-count contributors were informed is often asked, too. Another factor is some folks just don't bother with any of the content review processes, but generate high quality content. I'm wondering if greater use of the Edit Filter might be effective in some of these cases. (And yes, to me, the protection for Lesbian is simply blindingly obvious.) By the way, nice job on the Donner Party. –Whitehorse1 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people protect for a reason, and that is simply becuase not many peopel can be stuffed doing RC on articles in a given topic, and that people obviously don't care enough about formally chaning the policy, they just ignore it en masse. Especially when only 1-2 people bother to patrol a daily, rpt sockmaster, who attacks 100+s of pages, eg Nangparbat (talk · contribs) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the indefinite protections to frequently vandalized pages ease the work of vandal patrollers, who, some have better things to do, like create content, rather than waste time refreshing a page history of a frequently vandalized page and check and revert every second. But, as one pointed out, indefinite does not mean infinite, and indef protections can be lifted of there's a good reason and an agreement to do so. --Connormah (talk | contribs) 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But then again not all administrator decisions are going to be perfect, so some are likely to be bad and therefore they should be reviewed at some point. Besides if most of the projects pages are protected how do you get new blood into the project? Take the articles on Apple, the Apple article is semi'd and so is iPod, so is iPhone, so is iPad and so is iPod touch. Now all of these were protected for good reason I'm sure, but it still makes it much more difficult to get into the project as a new editor which is bad.

However YellowMonkey said the following: "I do a weekly RC sweep of Australian schools and 85% of edits are vandalism or spam, and reverts thereof. Typically more than a day after the article was messed." - maybe all school articles (not University ones) should be protected in some way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS To elaborate on the above, I don't think most school articles are particularly important so won't be watched and people are likely to vandalise their school/their friends school articles.

I also think there could be some merit in making the protection criteria for FA's stronger as there is less an IP (or a beginner user) will usefully be able to contribute to such "finished" articles - and really any change to them should probably involve talk page discussion. However on the other hand articles about obscure south-Vietnamese presidents which are less high-profile, have much more room for improvement and also have little reason to be vandalised could be unprotected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And one further comment, I see no reason why any unilateral protection or semi-protection for longer than a week cannot be brought up on the requests for protection page after it has been performed - usually there is a response there within a few hours at most and that would still allow Admins to respond quickly to problems as they arise with a short term temporary protection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thieu and Ngo Dinh Diem aren't any more obscure than the current Iraqi leader or Karzai, and they had a lot more dictatorial power tham the current two and gave the Americans more headaches as they were less reliant on aid and could afford to cheese off Washington by doing what they wanted YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally out of the current world leaders Karzai is one of the few - beyond BRIC, the US and the large EU countries that I've actually heard of. Karzai gets a huge amount of international news coverage as there are foreign troops there and his country has a lot of problems. The Vietnamese leaders of 40 years ago don't get any coverage at all really - especially since although Vietnam is still poor these days is peaceful and fairly successful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)