| Revision as of 00:27, 10 March 2007 view sourceSteel (talk | contribs)20,265 edits →Indefinate Sprotection on Userpages: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:29, 25 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,796 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy/Archive 18) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-semi-indef}} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Not edit protected}} | |||
| {{Talk header|WT:PROTECT|WT:PPOL}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{Counter-Vandalism Unit}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Policy talk}} | |||
| {{AmE}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 18 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == Operational pages == | |||
| I propose updating the policy to explicitly cover the protection of operational pages used by bots and user scripts. While many of these pages are already protected, it would be better to include something in the policy. ] is the most recent target of a disruptive edit, but this has also happened in the last year with ], ], ], ], ], and ]. If there is consensus, I would like to add a '''Protection of operational pages''' section under the '''Uncommon protections''' section as follows: | |||
| == Commons == | |||
| {{blockquote|Operational pages used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes, but is not limited to, configuration pages, data pages, log pages, and status pages. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are ] and should not be protected for this reason.}} | |||
| With growing use of the Wikimedia Commons to host images, a problem arises particularly with regard to protection of images on the main page and other images prone to vandalism. Few en: administrators are also administrators on the commons, and present practice on the commons is not to grant adminship to people unless they have contributed to the commons itself, regardless of whether they are admins on other Wikimedia projects. Therefore, few people have both the interest and ability to handle protection/unprotection in these cases. | |||
| Note that the intrapage links will omit the page name if this is added to the policy. ] (]) 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Now what? | |||
| :I updated the proposed text slightly to remove {{tpq|Similar to ]}} which is unnecessary and I also updated the proposed location since it doesn't really fit in the '''Protection by namespace''' section. Most of the protections for this reason are in User space, but some are in Misplaced Pages space, Module space, and Template space. ] (]) 22:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] Co., ] 18:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I went ahead and added the section with some minor rewording, and with one significant change: I added {{tpq|principally}} as an additional restriction to ensure this doesn't extend to cases where software happens to use a page (e.g., protecting ] because a user script extracts the list of ArbCom members would not be covered). | |||
| :If anyone has comments or concerns about this change to encode common practice in policy, please let me know. Thanks. ] (]) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Should some templates be fully protected? == | |||
| == Unprotected == | |||
| {{moved from|Misplaced Pages talk:High-risk templates}} | |||
| There is no mention on this page of what to do with a page that has been protected, in order to request that it be unprotected... | |||
| Are there any "very" high risk templates or modules which need full protection or is template protection adequate? The guideline ] is not clear on this matter, and there is an ongoing discussion about the protection of ] — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 20:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course there are, and they mostly already are. Ones used on 10's of millions of pages which could cause severe disruption are good candidates, as are many that are part of the system interface. The ] is seldom backlogged and serves as an effective check against protection. The policy (]) already makes allowances for this. If guideline text is outdated, ''it's a wiki.....'' — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| How do the editors of ] get to edit it again, now they have some agreement? | |||
| :In other policy, ] makes passing mention of full protection. It's probably also worth re-reading ], which talks about 'temporary', 'extraordinary', 'thousands of transclusions', and other things. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] 08:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think ] highlights the argument in favor of allowing template editors to edit many or all of the FPROT templates: | |||
| :::{{tq|While full protection is an ideal temporary solution for articles that have demonstrated a state of overwhelming controversy, it is less ideal as a permanent precautionary measure for templates. Many editors who have shown an aptitude for coding templates, and have earned the trust of the community in doing their work, may not necessarily be administrators, nor even be interested in becoming administrators.}} | |||
| == Page move protection? == | |||
| :::{{tq|Non-administrators do have the ability to request edits at fully-protected templates for administrators to enact on their behalf, but there is a significant shortage of administrators who have the time and necessary skills to do this reliably. Coders also tend to find this extra step more than a mere annoyance: Technical work is largely rewarding to technically-minded people in that they value the hands-on experience. Many end up choosing to avoid having to verbalize uncontroversial edit requests made to convince someone else to enact an edit on their behalf, by simply avoiding work on fully-protected templates altogether.}} | |||
| ::I think WP will be better off letting template editors work on FPROT templates. If there are template editors who have lost the trust of the community, the right answer is to remove their template editor rights, rather than FPROT the templates they work on. (Bias alert: I am an template editor). — ] (]) 06:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A section on Page move protection should be added here. | |||
| :::I am of two minds on this one. I am a very experienced template editor, and I mostly know my limits. When I have doubts about my ability to successfully implement an edit, I test it in the sandbox, ask on the talk page or VPT, or both. Every once in a while, the Dunning-Kruger effect kicks in, and I do not have doubts but get something wrong. If I see the problem, I either quickly revert or quickly fix the problem. About once a year, I am dunned by other template editors and admins for such behavior, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, I figure. Template editors fix a lot of stuff around here. | |||
| That's when the move tab is removed from a page to prevent vandalism. I haven't been able to find it documented anywhere. If it is, it should be linked from this page, as this is where people will look to find out about it. ] 08:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::A few times per year, I encounter a fully protected template or other transcluded page that I can't edit, so I put the edit in the sandbox and put in an edit request on the template's page, with a full explanation of the esoteric change that I am requesting. Admins have always gotten to these requests within a couple of days, IIRC. About half the time, a sensible admin will lower the page's protection to template protection because it no longer meets the FP requirements. | |||
| :I've just been looking too, and I'm as wise as before. It's expressly covered by the generic "limited circumstances", but no clue as to what those are, exactly. Against page-move-vandalism only? In page-move disputes? And if so, at what stage? For the duration of a requested move "vote", if the target is a moving one? And it should probably be made explicit that admins "should not protect pages which they have been involved with" in this respect, too. Is the request-for-page-move-protection procedure the same? Unless I'm missing something obvious that'd cover this, I'll knock up a proposal for such a section in a couple of days time. ] 20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::: | |||
| ::Oh, I was looking for a technical description, not a policy on when and how to use it, but that would be cool too. ;-) ] 21:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::About the same number of times per year, I encounter some nice-to-have fix that I want to make to an FP page, but I don't bother with an edit request because it seems trivial. That, to me, is the only downside to denying FP template editing to template editors. Overall, I'd say that I can live with this inconvenience for the tradeoff of protecting these pages against template editors who are less careful than I am; there have been a few of them over the years. – ] (]) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds good, Alai: I didn't even realize there wasn't one. (Alas, can't help on the technical description.) ] ] 22:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Pulling a random number out of the air, but anything with >1 mil transclusions probably ''should'' be FPROT, if only as a final check to make sure folks are really paying attention to what they are doing. Raising the protection on a template because one template editor made mistakes one time seems a bit overkill, and a word to said template editor would probably be more effective, especially as it would leave a (digital) paper trail for if those sorts of things were a regular occurrence. The above being said, I have no issue with having TPER on pages with >1mil transclusions if they're fairly static or there's a TPE that has demonstrated they can update the template properly (i.e. sandboxing first, etc). ] (]) 15:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh! Sorry for the inadvertent thread-jacking, then. :) There's some description of the effect here: ]: does that cover what you were looking for? I'd say it was mostly self-documenting, though, at least once you realize that why-did-that-tab-just-disappear? does indeed have to do with a deliberate protection feature. Perhaps there should be a talk-page template pointing to the various relevant policies and other meta-pages, covering essentially, why it's move-protected, the policy on same (once there is one!), how to request unprotection (ditto). ] 01:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], there are just 198 template and module pages with 999K or more transclusions. Looking at the list, I see a lot of low-level, sometimes intricately used, tools that I (a template editor) wouldn't dare mess with without a discussion, along with some pretty simple templates that should not need frequent maintenance. Heck, I even created one of them, {{tl|Short description/lowercasecheck}}, but now that it is used in six million pages, I wouldn't like to see template editors monkeying with it casually. I don't see a problem with one million as a threshold for automatic FP. – ] (]) 06:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was looking for a description that would help an admin in understanding the how-to of move protect. It is very clear once I click the protect button as it has a check box for move-protect only, which an admin wd not know till he had clicked the button before (as it doesn't seem to be described anywhere). --] 07:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Under ], the protection policy includes {{tpq|Pages that are ] very frequently}} on the list of pages that are {{tpq|usually fully protected for an indefinite period of time}}. That seems pretty clear. It might be worth having a report somewhere for pages with more than one million transclusions that aren't fully protected, though. ] (]) 08:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the long edit history of some of the articles and the problems encountered when they are moved, I move-protected the ones with the longest histories. -- User:Docu | |||
| ==Blanking before protection?== | |||
| Someone is trying out on nl.wikipedia the idea of blanking a page before protection, for an article in which neither party would accept the other's version. (Note: I can't read Dutch and thus don't edit there, so this is all secondhand knowledge plus Babelfish; the page is here: ].) | |||
| It might be interesting to try here—in cases where a page is protected due to a content dispute, to blank the page and instead of the current {{tl|protected}} template with a sort of combination of {{tl|protected}} and {{tl|twoversions}}. This does several things. First, the blanking avoids the problem of ], and the fact that nobody's version is up gives interested parties more incentive to come to a resolution in a timely fashion. | |||
| The nl: version doesn't, however, make it immediately easy for the reader to see the content of the page. Thus, like the twoversions template, the protection template should give a link to both versions of the page and the diff, so that readers can quickly access some version -- any version! -- of the article and see what the issue is about. | |||
| (Another note: one of the issues with page protection leaving the page stuck on a particular version is that those who like the protected version have little incentive to hurry discussion along: they have prevailed for the moment, and the longer they delay the longer they are certain their preferred version stays.)LOL | |||
| Obviously, this is only for pages protected because of edit-warring over content disputes, not for pages protected because of a sudden flood of vandalism; the idea is to limit it to pages where the dispute is between "two otherwise reasonable parties" who cannot reach agreement (as described by someone I bounced this idea off of previously), so that one lone POV-pusher against consensus cannot get a page blanked. | |||
| It may be worth trying on an experimental basis at least. ] ] 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that would mean the page would ''always'' be protected on ] instead of only 50% of the time. It would be worse, not better. --] 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see a problem with this if there are links to both versions. If it helps people communicate, it's a good thing. --] 17:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Creative idea, but I definitely oppose this. Having some kind of article immediately visible to readers is critical in my mind, even if we know it's flawed and even if we have to bracket it with suitable warnings and disclaimers. This is only useful to the editing part of the community, and only potentially so at best, and the cost to the reading part of the community is not worth it. --] 17:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This has been revived as ]. Hopefully it will get more attention this time. --<span style="color:red">]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></span> 05:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==What constitutes "very long"?== | |||
| It says that "In general, temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long..." The ] page as been locked since the 8th. In my opinion, that's very long. Is that protection in violation of Misplaced Pages policy? ] 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Need guidelines on how long=== | |||
| I would suggest that there should be a consensus on how long a page should be temporarily protected. In cases of vandalism, 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient. In cases of edit wars, again, I would suggest that 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient. The only reason to protect a page due to an edit war is to enforce a "cooling-off period", and possibly to allow time for a quickpoll. It should not be to lock the page in the Right Version. I think that some pages are protected for an extended period of time because one user makes a protection request, and an admin protects the page as requested, and then does not follow up. | |||
| There does not appear to be any clear guideline for when pages should be unprotected. I would suggest that 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient. ] 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==All edits to protected pages should be noted at talk== | |||
| See ]. Inspired by this, I am proposing the following addition to this policy: | |||
| ''All edits to a protected article must be noted and explained on the talk page. The only exception to this is adding the {{tl|protected}} template.'' | |||
| ] 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is a minimum. I would suggest something stronger, such as ''All edits to a protected article '''MUST''' be noted and explained on the talk page. The only exception to this is adding the {{tl|protected}} template. Edits to protected articles are likely to be considered an abuse of admin privileges and should be avoided.'' ] 11:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Protection for targets of vandalism? == | |||
| Should pages which are common targets of vandalism, simply by their very nature, get protected? Recently ] ]. No edit war has been happening, no targeted attack by a group of ne'er-do-wells, just your standard, minor, childish vandalisms, each unrelated to the other. The page would average between two and five instances of vandalism a day (far less than, say, ]), nothing one can't handle. | |||
| The page is currently protected. When the protection comes off, the vandalism will continue at the exact same rate as before. Most of the new vandals will have never known that the page was protected. Protection will have solved nothing at all, except prevent good-faith contributors from editing the article. | |||
| The policy page states that a page can be protected if it | |||
| *has been a recent target of persistent vandalism | |||
| This makes sense: ''recent'' targets of presistant vandalalism are probably spawned by news reports or something, and, after a few days, the vandalism will probably die down. However, long-term, low-level vandalism, at the rough rate of Misplaced Pages background noise, are not, I think, covered by this, and I can see no possible benefit in protecting pages in these cases. Nothing would be resolved or changed once the page is unprotected. | |||
| This isn't a comment about ] per se — I currently have nothing I wish to add to the article and so don't care if it's protected — this is a question of protection policy. Should pages that have a constant level of unrelated acts of vandalism, i.e. both pages that 13-year-olds would look up, like ] or ], and controvertial figures like ], get protection solely as a result of these acts of vandalism? I think not, and I think the policy should be quite specific in stating this. — ] | ] ] 12:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a good point. Indeed, we might want to add an adendum to our policy spelling out certain "special needs" of a certain "category" of articles. But there are a few ''nuances''. I've had experience with this, so I can say this with some security: even articles that are "vandalism magnets" may profit from protection. As Asbestos said, there's a certain normal rate of vandalism that those articles take, will always take and no amount of protection, except if permanent (which is obviously unacceptable), will change that. However, those are supposed to be long-term, low-intensity attacks, which can be somewhat easily handled by the users committed to the article. The problem is when that changes, when a very insistent vandal/troll, or a group of them, or sockpuppets, take a negative interest in the article. They can make it very laborious and even stressful to maintain an article's integrity, and they are not always easy to spot, on account of dynamic IPs (especially AOL users, etc.). Sometimes, what seems to be a constant, unrelated, succession of attacks, may be just one, or a group of users, insistently returning to disturb Misplaced Pages. If the IP is dynamic, blocking them is impossible, and useless. But by protecting the article, sometimes for a longer period, we might succeed in getting these people to move on, so the article may return to its regular situation, with "normal vandalism".<br>This is usually not clear cut. In the case of ], for instance, I saw that the article was being attacked two or three times a day, and that almost no new content was being added, and most of the activity was vandalism and the reverting of it. I blocked it. Once we lift the block, we'll see if the rate of attacks slows down some. If not, we might try to canvas and assess to see if we can spot some sort of similarity that would indicate a connection between the different IPs vandalising the page. If there's none (that we can detect, at least), then there's no point in protecting the article again, but if there appears to be some connection, we might consider another period of protection, to see if we can get the more insistent, returning vandals to move on. That would appear to be the only way to deal with this, and there's at least some hope of reducing the pace of attacks — not eliminating vandalism altogether, that's virtually impossible in some articles. Regards, ] 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::When a young boy is given his first French dictionary, the first thing he does is look up ], ] and ]. The difference between most French dictionaries and Misplaced Pages is that if you deface the former, only you get to see it and snigger over it. I'd suggest you recognise this phenomenon and move on. -- Grace Note | |||
| == Protection Requests and POV Wars == | |||
| Here is a situation that occurs from time to time. I think that it should be described so that admins can be aware of the situation and use judgment. An article is subject to edit wars. There is an emerging consensus, but there is one POV pusher who disagrees with the consensus, and who may have sockpuppets. The minority editor makes repeated edits that are reverted by the majority. Then the ''minority'' editor requests that the page be protected due to "vandalism", or due to an edit war. What often happens is that an admin reviews the edit history and sees that there is a majority and a minority, and so protects the page in the Majority Version. There is no one right answer to this situation, but simply locking the page in the Majority Version is not a long-term solution, nor even much of a short-term solution. If the POV pusher has violated 3RR, then blocking the offender is the short-term solution. Mediation may be a better answer. In extreme cases, arbitration may be necessary to ban a rogue editor. I think that it needs to be clarified that medium-term to long-term page protection is NOT the answer to edit wars. | |||
| Page protection for 24 to 72 hours may be a good idea for a cooling-off period or to allow consensus to be determined. Long-term page protection is not the way to deal with an editor who has an open disregard for consensus. ] 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed addition: Page move protection == | |||
| Similar considerations apply to protecting a page against being moved, only. In particular, page move protection is appropriate: | |||
| *in cases of frequent or on-going page-move vandalism; | |||
| *for persistent page-move disputes, on ]; | |||
| *or where such a dispute continues during the course of a listing on ]. | |||
| Comments and suggestions? An admonition about admins and pages they edit/move is hopefully not specifically required, as it's covered in the general case already. ] 04:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks good to me, I support you adding it. ] 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excellent... No yelps of protest, so I'm inclined to take this as an indication this is within the spirit of the existing policy, and "add it and see if I get reverted", rather than having a formal vote. (After a short wait to see if this provokes said protests...) ] 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Protect page from edits by one user? == | |||
| Can a page be protected by edits from one user who consistently putting in a great deal of POV material and taking out NPOV material? ] ] 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would suggest mediation over a combination of content and conduct issues. ] 15:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not technically possible. However the user could be blocked from editing at all, ask at ] or if it is vandalism ] or ]. | |||
| :If it is one user who is editing from various dynamic IPs then protecting the page might be better. I cannot give a definate answer without know who the user is and what the article is. ] 08:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was a survey not long ago on whether developing a by-user page protection capability would be desirable, and there was a strong consensus in favor of it. I was aware that the feature did not currently exist, but it was my understanding that there was no reason why the developers could not implement it. ] 11:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't remember that, and can't find anything about it in a search for "protection" at bugzilla. If it hasn't been rasied as a bug/feature request there the chances of the developers doing anything about it are slim. ] 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Test Templates Protection? == | |||
| The test templates (], ], ], ], ], ], ]) are visible on thousands of pages. Although vandalism to these templates isn't that common, there isn't a need to change them often. Additionally, any changes should be discussed on the template's talk page. What do people think about protecting these templates? Personally, I think they should be protected due to high visibility and the fact that they rarely change. ] | ] 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that seems reasonable. ] 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Page protection power in Arbcom cases== | |||
| I reverted the edit located by ] for two reasons. First, this edit was unnannounced & thus did not reflect any consensus on the talk page as is required for official policy changes. Second, and perhaps more disturbing, the timing of SlimVirgin's change to this clause appears to be intended to insulate herself from a recently accepted Arbcom case against her (]) that includes multiple charges of violating the clause she changed by imposing page protection on articles where she was involved (evidence located , , and . Given this circumstance, I will ask SlimVirgin and any other supportive editor to refrain from making this change until (1) clear consensus has been established AND (2) the current Arbcom case is decided. Thanks. ] 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Stop the wikilawyering, RD. I think my edits do reflect what already occurs. The first edit was intended only to establish that "is engaged in editing" is present continuous tense i.e. not a page they once edited, but a page they are currently editing, or an edit dispute they are currently engaged in. So I added "actively." If you look through the page history, you'll see I was the one who added that sentence in the first place. | |||
| :As for the arbcom point, Fred recently confirmed in relation to a LaRouche editor that any admin may enforce arbcom decisions on any page. For example, removing posts by a banned user is just like removing simple vandalism. I'm therefore going to reinsert my edits. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not wikilawyering, Slim. I'm simply trying to stop you from unilaterally changing an official wikipedia policy in a way that's designed to give you cover in a currently pending Arbcom case against you for violating that exact same policy. You have no business changing the rules to protect your past violations of them. It's called a ], Slim, and until the Arbcom issues its finding, you have one as far as this particular rule goes. If you think the policy needs changed, wait until the Arbcom case is done and you no longer have that conflict of interest. Until then, I am opposed to and will continue to oppose your change. ] 04:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::You didn't object when I added the sentence to the intro: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." But you object because I add the word "actively." Why object to the second and not the first? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You added that intro on September 2nd, Slim, and it conformed with the existing provision "Admins should '''not''' protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." Your violations of both and the acceptance of the Arbcom case happened over the last couple of weeks in between then and now. You didn't have a conflict of interest in changing the rules then, but now you do and that's why I object. ] 05:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you feel I violated policy on a certain date, then whatever the policy said ''on that date'' is what counts. Any changes made now or in the future will not affect your case. This page isn't about you. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And stop mentioning your arbcom case. You have submitted a very long list of frankly silly claims to the arbcom against, I believe, four or five editors. That's your business and yours alone. I doubt anyone has even read it yet, particularly as you keep adding to it with no end in sight. Therefore, please don't refer to it as though it has any bearing on other editors. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I mentioned the Arbcom case, Slim, because you are trying to change one of the main rules that it accuses you of violating. The Arbcom has voted to accept that case and now they're hearing the evidence that you broke those rules. Altering those rules after the fact to provide yourself cover is therefore a problem. The fact that you decided to change them a day after evidence of your violation was introduced to that case raises a few suspicions, to put it mildly. In my first post I asked you politely to refrain from changing the page protection rule until the case is decided. That is a fair and reasonable request given that a clear ] exists here. If you truly believe that you did no wrong in page protecting ] less than 24 hours after you made a major 18-edit rewrite of it, then you should be confident that the Arbcom will exonerate you. Changing the rules to benefit you in the middle of the case is cheating though. ] 05:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It is apparently customary for ArbCom enforcements to be handled by "engaged" administrators. This is probably because in most cases they are the only ones interested enough to do the work. ] and ] are notable recent examples of engaged editors who have shouldered the job of being enforcers, and I doubt anyone is lining up to replace them (though they do get some help). -] 06:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| RD seems to have a point. Separately, why would an ArbCom ruling have anything to do w a page protection? If a user is banned, or otherwise problematically editing, punish them, not the article... ] 13:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree regarding page protection. Virtually all Arbcom enforcement rulings give a specific method for dealing with violations (e.g. a 24 hour block) and page protection is NOT usually among them. If an editor has truly violated an arbcom ruling then the obvious solution is to follow the Arbcom's prescription for enforcement. If page protection is not in that prescription then it has no place in the enforcement phase. ] 16:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Changing official policy for personal reasons== | |||
| SlimVirgin - Changing official Misplaced Pages policy to suit your personal needs is a serious matter. I've asked you repeatedly and in a polite manner to hold off on your changes to this policy's definitions of Admin Page Protection powers until the arbitration case against you for abusing those powers is settled. I've also voiced repeated objections to your insertion of those changes at this time and another editor has made similar objections, indicating consensus is against you. Despite all this, you've responded with a rude and uncooperative tone on the talk page and continue to unilaterally add your desired modifications of the policy in spite of all the reasons why it is inappropriate for you to do so at this time. I'm accordingly adding this incident into the arbitration case against you, and asking you once again to exercise greater restraint on this matter until that case is settled and until your changes to official policy do not create objections or conflicts of interest. ] 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to be engaged in stalking and ]. I'm not changing policy. I added the sentence I'm editing in the first place; I know what I meant to say when I wrote it. If other people here think I'm changing policy someone else would have reverted me, but no one did. And any admin is allowed to take admin action in order to uphold an arbitration ruling. Again, this is not a change in policy. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Posting the same objection to the same policy page where you keep making the same self-oriented & thus objectionable change (and unilaterally so at that) is neither stalking nor a point disruption, Slim. If you are adding new clauses and provisions to a policy page that were not there previously, it's a change in the policy. Trying to cloak it as anything other than that isn't constructive. ] 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::RD, policy is supposed to reflect what happens. And the reason I say you're stalking and engaged in ] is that you're following my edits and objecting to things I agree with for the sake of it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I put this policy on my watchpage, Slim, when you attempted to change the policy in ways that would legitimize your violations of it in the Arbcom case. That's why I noticed when you returned here today and tried to make the same type of changes, and that's why I restored the original policy where you changed the provisions regarding administrator. ] 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But this isn't the only page you've followed me to, as you well know. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your continuous bad faith insinuations and personal attacks are not productive, Slim. I've requested neutral administrator assistance and will be adding evidence of your belligerence here to the Arbcom case. ] 02:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Newest addition == | |||
| Since the preceding section has turned into a tangent that has no realation to the actual policy this page, here's a new section where we'll actually discuss it. I'm not sure what the Arbcom addition is getting at. I don't think arbcom has ever, or will ever, rule tha an article should be protected. They make injunctions or ban people from articles, but what do they have to do with protection policy? ]·] 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Arbcom enforcement decisions don't ever seem to prescribe page protection, which is at most a temporary tool for edit disputes. Arbcom enforcements use specific prescriptions such as "If User X violates this ruling, he/she may be blocked for up to 24 hours." The obvious way to enforce one of these if indeed it has been violated is to impose the 24 hour block. Page protection has nothing to do with blocks and isn't necessary to impose one. ] 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom and Page Protection == | |||
| I am not sure why Rangerdude claims that SlimVirgin has a conflict of interest, since he does not give details. | |||
| The point that Rangerdude seems to overlook is one that SlimVirgin is referring to in passing. ArbCom rulings often ban an editor from editing particular articles or articles in particular areas. If such a "partially banned" editor persists in making changes to an article, then they are not vandalism exactly, but are similar to vandalism, because they are edits that the ArbCom has found to be contrary to consensus and policy. In that case, an admin should be able to do either or both of two things. First, the admin may block the offending account for 24 hours, or for a longer period after a repeat offense. Second, the admin may page-protect the previous version of the page for a short period of time (never for a long period). The reason why the admin may find it necessary to protect the page as well as blocking the user is, of course, to prevent the offending editor from using sock-puppets to edit the page. | |||
| If Rangerdude is saying that the admin who protects the page may not be a participant in any edit wars about the page, I agree. However, if an admin cannot protect a page that is being edited in defiance of an ArbCom ruling, then that would leave a hole for sock-puppets. | |||
| Rangerdude may have a point, but I am not sure what it is. SlimVirgin's argument is entirely sound. ] 13:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Robert - I gave a link to the full details of the case for any editor who wants to review it in my firs post located , so I am not certain how you came to the conclusion that I failed to give the details. You may go directly to the portion of the Arbcom case dealing with this issue at this . Upon doing so you will find that my case includes evidence that SlimVirgin has illegitimately page protected at least four separate articles (one of them protected twice) where she had been involved as an editor in disputes and revert wars. On one of those articles - ] - SlimVirgin made 18 major content edits to the page less than 24 hours before she protected it (with her recent changes conveniently intact, BTW). On the other three articles she was repeatedly revert warring with another editor in the days leading up to her page protection. Please read more carefully in the future before jumping to conclusions. ] 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. I now see why Rangerdude says SlimVirgin has a conflict of interest. However, I disagree, because there are two separate issues. | |||
| ::First, there is a pending lengthy ArbCom case involving at least four editors, including Slimvirgin and Rangerdude, with allegations and counter-allegations of stalking, and allegations by Rangerdude against SlimVirgin of abuse of page protection. Rangerdude claims that SlimVirgin imposed page protection on an article in which she (SlimVirgin) was involved in an edit war. I am not a party to that ArbCom case nor an arbitrator, and have not researched the details. I am satisfied that the ArbCom can determine whether there was an administrative abuse. | |||
| ::Second, SlimVirgin made a change to the wording of the protection policy. Her change is '''not''' applicable to ''pending'' ArbCom cases, but to ''decided'' ArbCom rulings. They are not the same, and are not really related. SlimVirgin is referring to cases where an editor has already been banned from certain articles. The account in question can be blocked to enforce the ban. However, the partially banned user may then create sockpuppets. It may be necessary to protect the page for 24 hours, just as if the page were subject to repeated vandalism. | |||
| ::The two issues are not the same and are not closely related. At the same time, Rangerdude does have a point, which is that the wording of a policy should not be changed substantively without consensus. I agree with SlimVirgin that the wording of the policy needs a change to deal with sockpuppets of banned editors. Is there a consensus for the change? ] 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't believe that there is consensus for the change at this time. Myself and at least two other editors have expressed doubts above that an admin would even need page protection at all when most Arbcom rulings prescribe a penalty other than page protection. Also, most Arbcom cases where sockpuppets have been a problem also have blocking penalties for those sock puppets as well and their IP addresses, so page protection would not be needed there either. Regarding the effect of changing the clause on the Arbcom case with SlimVirgin, I disagree for two reasons. First, changing the rules while the case is still pending can create unnecessary confusion in the case. When RfAr requests are filed, they cite specific policies with a general link such as ] - not links to earlier versions of them before a change. In order to know that it had been changed and when each reader would have to review the entire page history of the cited policy, and that is both unduly time consuming and prone to confusion. As you yourself have shown in your original comment, even the most seasoned wikipedia editors sometimes miss things when trying to follow the history of a discussion. The timing of SlimVirgin's change and the fact that it pertains directly to the clause she's accused of violating are what makes this confusion a problem. Furthermore, even if we assume the old version to apply in the Arbcom, I could easily see SlimVirgin using a mootness defense that says "yeah, I broke the policy at the time but it's been changed since then and what I did is okay now under those changes." This type of defense could be used to argue for reduced penalty or enforcement clauses, thus letting her get off the hook with a slap on the wrist. Second, changing the rules could theoretically be used by SlimVirgin to justify future page protections of a similar nature of the ones she's accused of breaking the rules on. That becomes a problem if the Arbcom finds that she broke the rules in the original instances for doing essentially the same thing she plans on doing after changing those rules to cover herself. To use an analogy, a man who was awaiting trial for stealing bread should not be allowed to change the law and legalize bread theft so he can continue stealing without penalty until he is tried for the original theft. ] 04:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that it is bad form for an editor to change a policy he or she is accused of violating in a way that would support an ] justification while the matter is in arbitration. | |||
| ::::On the matter at hand: I disagree that because the notion of "simple vandalism" could arguably be streched to include edits in contravention of a ArbCom decision that we must therefore explicitly allow it here. | |||
| ::::I am a strong believer that admin powers are best avoided in disputes in which one has a personal stake. Aside from the unfairness this creates in a dispute between editors with and without admin status, it is unwise simply because it tends to escalate the conflict. If a page requires protection because of ongoing edits in violation of an ArbCom ruling, I see no reason why one of the 500+ uninvolved admins can't be the ones to take this action. What is the compelling reason here that an involved admin be permitted to take action? | |||
| ::::While "simple vandalism" and edits forbidden by the ArbCom may be subject to similar remedies (such as "revert on sight"), I don't think they are equivalent. When a matter has gone through arbitration there has been a protracted dispute -- typically emotions run high and factions have become polarized. In a context of such volatility, it simply seems wise to leave the use of admin privileges to someone who has not been a party to the dispute. Therefore, I would oppose the proposed change. --] 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Page Protection == | |||
| If anyone is having difficulties with the current system of protection, or just wants more variety, you may be interested in a new proposal called ]. If you have time, would you please check that page out and add your comments, sugguestions, and edits? Thanks. -]]]] 12:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editing protected pages== | |||
| I've removed some words--apparently added fairly recently--saying administrators mustn't edit protected pages, and I have refactored the text to clearly indicate under what circumstances this is permissible. To clarify, administrators don't do major edits to protected pages ''without consensus''. If there is consensus on the talk page, however, administrators may add or remove whole sections without lifting protection. This may sometimes be necessary in making steps towards dispute resolution or performing necessary changes during a period of protection from vandalism. --]|] 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed ] == | |||
| There currently is a straw poll running at ], dealing with a creation of an intermediate level of protection for pages with extreme levels of vandalism from new users. Right now, the policy has strong support, but additional input is always welcome. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Template protection == | |||
| There hs recently been some discussion on wikitech-l about (such as {{tl|tl}} et al), and the horrible horrible effects they wreak upon the database. Having read ] and been horrified, I that ] be permnently protected. | |||
| With further consideration, I now think that there are several more templates which could be protected. Certain high-volume templates are vandalised reasonably often. In the last day or so, for example, {{tl|ref}} and {{tl|note}} have been vndalised with obscene pictures, see ] (both are currently protected). Discounting vandalism edits, these templates are only edited a handful of times in a year. Both templates are used on about 6,600 pages. If ] is accurate, then every time Ref or Note is vandalised, the squid and parser cached versions of each of these 6,600 pages is dropped, and the pages are regenerated the next time they are viewed. The same can apply to templates such as {{tl|main}} (currently protected), {{tl|seealso}}, {{tl|disambig}} (also currently protected) and several others. | |||
| While it would normally be un-wiki to mass protect a set of pages, I don't think it is so in this case. These templates are generally stable, with very few non-vandalism edits in a year. Any legitimate edits could easily be made by admins following requests. Moreover, the template namespace is generally behind the scenes, as it were, and not so visible to casual users. Permanently protecting these templates would save alot of trouble. | |||
| I might work this up into a policy proposal soon, but I'd appreciate some comments here first. --] (]) 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The part about high-visibility templates already ''is'' pretty much policy, chck out ]. If you'd like to propose another one to be added to that list, make a request on ] and we'll consider the merits of that template (there are a few other considerations, obviously). | |||
| :As for the "logical templates," I don't know much about them. Could you help me out: If they are hard on the servers, then what is protection going to do to help that? If they're not high-visibility like {{tl|test}}, then why should they be protected? ]·] 23:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::The biggest server hits comes when these templates are '''edited'''. They are not highly visible themselves, but are used in many other tempaltes (although whether they should be so used is currently being debated on ] and its talk page) including a number of user box templates and many others. They are a vandalism target because of the large number of pages they affect indirectly, and they are a DOS target because even a null or subtle edit to them causes a significant server hit, which is likely to get bigger as these templates are used more widely. ] ] 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tl|qif}} is used on 18,124 pages. Editing it (vandalism or not) could DoS Misplaced Pages almost as badly as the deletion of VfD did, and if a vandal found it, they could put penises on thousands of high-visibility pages. --] 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Dmc, I see that there are some templates which are already protected, what I was thinking was more along the lines of writing it down so that it is more permanent and less haphazard. Templates do tend to get protection when vandalism happens, but as a browse of the protect log shows, templates get unprotected and then vandalised again (). I think the protection should be permanent in certain cases. | |||
| Regarding the logical templates, the problem identified with these is that they are often meta-templates, that is templates which themselves include other templates. Changing template A drops the cache for all pages containing that template. If template B contains template A, then changing A also drops the cache for all pages including template B, and so on. In this way, a single vandalism edit can lead to thousands or tens of thousands of cached versions being dropped, causing those pages to be regenerated when they are next viewed, and putting unnecessary stress on the servers. --] (]) 00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Indefinitely protecting templates (''not'' articles) due to very high usage and threat of vandalism is sensible, already done, and I would consent to including it here. As to protecting meta-templates, that's an interesting aspect I hadn't thought of before. I'd like to see a more specific proposal on that. ]·] 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| There is now a proposal to protect all high-risk templates, see ]. --] (]) 23:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Semi-protection policy has been approved== | |||
| We now need to decide whether information from the ] page needs to be added to this one or if it's a better idea to rename this page "Full protection policy". Discussion is at the ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Merge semi-protection into this page. -- ] ] 02:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Protecting the talk page of a blocked user == | |||
| I've added this, because I see that many admins are doing it anyway, so it seems to have become ''de facto'' policy: "Blocked users now have the ability to edit their talk pages during a block. These may be protected for the duration of the block period if they are being used to make personal attacks or similar, or if the account has been blocked indefinitely." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| That is the ''user talk page''. What about protecting the ''user page'' of a blocked user? Sometimes a troll or flamer has an inflammatory or offensive user page? | |||
| ==Time-limited protection== | |||
| Okay, so I just semi-protected a page for the first time to deal with a very persistent unregistered vandal working from different accounts. He/she/it seems to have gone away. I would have liked to have had the option of pre-setting the time for semi-protection, e.g, the semi-protection would automatically expire after 48 hours. Then I could walk away and not think about it again. Comments? ] | ] 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems like a good anti-vandal measure; people won't forget to unprotect either.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] for a feature request to enable this. --] (]) 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Query about new reason for protecting an article== | |||
| I'm not sure if this should be here or should actually be a new policy. I have just been to the ] and I thought that it would be useful to protect this page. It's not that it is a particular target for vandals, it's just that there are no conceivable edits that need to be made to this now that all the names are there. | |||
| This is not quite the same as the proposed policy for stable versions of articles as that is more about community consensus that it has reached a high enough level that, although it is conceivable that it could be better, any changes are unlikely to improve it. In this case however there is ''no other way'' this list could be written. The only edits therefore will be vandalism. | |||
| There are presumably some other (rare) examples of articles like this, where there is only one way of presenting the information - presumably other lists like this one. | |||
| Any thoughts? | |||
| --] 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Only one of those names is wikified. What if an article was written on another of those people in the future? Or what if someone wanted to reorganise the list with more information? Or even just add a category? I'm sure there's more potential edits to that page. Even if the page was "finished", it still shouldn't be protected, that's not what protection's about. --] (]) 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Protect to Unprotected and Unprotect to Protected == | |||
| The contents of ] will be changed from "Unprotect" to "Protected" and ] from "Protect" to "Unprotected" as per discussion in ]. A copy of the conversation has been posted at ] for posterity. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == MERGE WITH SEMI- ? == | |||
| It has been suggested that ] be merged with this page, please discuess here: | |||
| :]. ]]] 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Codified unwritten rule == | |||
| I added the defacto rule that pages linked prominently offsite, or off the main page are never to be protected to the page. Please revert me if there is no consensus for this change, and discuss here. Thanks ] - ] 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Stable versions == | |||
| I would like to start protecting articles for ]. Does it contravene with this policy? -- ] 13:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think it can be protected on the following grounds: | |||
| # Protecting a high-profile page from vandalism | |||
| # Maintaining the integrity of press releases | |||
| # Protecting certain "system administration" pages | |||
| Except that it may not satisfy: | |||
| * Protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version | |||
| -- ] 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Time Limit on Protection? == | |||
| I just noticed that the ] article has been protected for over two weeks. Is there a time limit on this kind of thing? --] 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Extension of protection to {{tl|tempundelete}} == | |||
| Regarding history undeletion for deletion review: While the template explicitly says the page is protected and we do this is a matter of course, it hase been raised that this is not in the page protection policy. Thus I'd propose adding to "A temporary protection is used for:" the line: | |||
| *<span style = "color:blue;">Allowing for history-only review during discussions on article restoration. </span> | |||
| ]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Copyright violation== | |||
| Could someone change this section of the policy to include favoring a version of the article '''without a possible copyright and fair use violation'''? I would make the change myself except that I've made comments on an article where this is an issue. | |||
| ''In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version. In cases of 3RR violations, admins may protect the version immediately before the first violation i.e. immediately before the first occurrence of a fourth revert. See Misplaced Pages talk:Revert#The protection option for the discussion on this.'' | |||
| Thanks, ] ] 15:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Doesn't the policy, taken together with other Misplaced Pages policies, already imply that willful copyright infringement shall be treated as vandalism? --] (]) 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Protecting the user talk page for my old account == | |||
| I changed my user name from ] to ] in January, and the proper redirects in my User / User talk spaces were set up, but people kept posting messages to my old talk page, not realizing that different capitalization of the user names means different users. I've protected my old talk page and just have a redirect to my new talk page, since I've missed quite a few messages that were posted to my old talk page. (See the page history of ] for further clarification.) I intend on having that protection be permanent; is this acceptable? And do I need to have it listed on the protected pages list? --] (]) 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion: mention ] earlier == | |||
| Hi! I was looking to request a page be protected. I found this helpful page, but didn't notice the ] link, as it was only mentioned in the "Unprotecting" section. Perhaps a link earlier on would improve the article? Thanks, --] 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Admins protecting their own pages == | |||
| The policy sais that some admins will protect their userpages, and some disagree with this, but it is not a big deal (paraphrased). Why is this allowed? Is every user allowed to request their pages be protected? Misplaced Pages is a wiki, and every page can be edited, even userpages, by anyone. I think that unless there is ongoing vandalism, userpages should not be protected (unless the user is blocked). Thanks, ]]]<sup>]</sup> 04:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I recently noted a case in which an administrator had permanently and pre-emptively protected his own user page. There was no history of persistent vandalism of that user page. My request to have the page unprotected, as well as a subsequent appeal, was denied. It could be argued that this is just a case of rules lawyering, since no real damage is being done by the unsanctioned protection. However, it seems to me that protecting a page in which one has an interest, and doing so unilaterally, is against the spirit of community ownership of Misplaced Pages. (As ] makes clear, even user pages are community owned; it is only by convention that they are not normally edited by other users.) Furthermore, administrators using their power to flout community consensus doesn't create a very collegial atmosphere. —] 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just out of interest, as a new admin venturing where angels might fear to tread - | |||
| ::# Can you provide a link to the page at issue? | |||
| ::# Why do you want to edit it? | |||
| ::# If you don't, how did you happen to notice it? | |||
| :: Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::To step in, it should be noted that the policy states "As a tradition, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit". However, the policy does also state that | |||
| :::*Administrators may protect their own user pages '''when appropriate''' (my emboldening) | |||
| :::*Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical | |||
| :::*If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you "get away with it". | |||
| :::Permenant and pre-emptive protection of a user page clearly goes against this. I think the best way to handle this sort of situation would be to drop a polite note to the admin in question asking for a rationale and pointing him/her towards the relevant policy. However, bear in mind that we do have rules such as ], the 'wide latitude' caveat and that third bullet point that suggests that if you're a good faith and helpful user, then we're not gonna start getting too strict over your user space. So, if the admin refused to unprotect then it would probably be wise to let it go as a rare occurence; however, if you think this is a regular and reoccuring phenonemon then I would be more inclined to agree that some changes could be made to either policy or practice --] 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I pre-emptively protect my userpage, subpages, and all my talk archives. I believe that the absolutely right to protect non-talk-page userspace pages stems from the person's right to revert changes made thereto. If anyone believe any of my pages violate policy, they may feel free to bring it up to my attention. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin protecting an article against policy == | |||
| Hiya, I had a question... I see in this policy, that it is considered bad form (if not forbidden) for an admin to protect a page that they are involved in editing. In the case that an admin violates this policy, what is the proper procedure to issue a complaint? Are there precedents that I can review? Thanks. --] 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm dismayed to note that no one has responded to you here, as I have identified some similar situations. Posting a complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard may be an option, but there is a potential conflict of interest. The Arbitration Committee may be appropriate, though that seems a bit drastic. —] 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: As it turned out, that particular incident that I was referring to eventually moved to a Mediation Cabal page, and was resolved that way (let me know if you'd like a link). There's another more recent incident I'm dealing with, where an admin involved with a discussion has been both protecting the related page, and also doing other things like deleting another user's post off of the discussion page. However, since the admin is generally a "good" admin, I'm trying to look at it as a temporary lapse in judgment, and not something actionable. Still though, for other times when this comes up, it would be nice to see this policy (and related policies to prevent abuse of admin access) to actually have some enforceability. --] 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == FA protection == | |||
| Maybe Featured Articles should be protected like the Featured Pictures to prevent vandalism. Does anyone think it is a good idea? ] (] • ] • <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8"></span> • ]) 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :]. ] 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's a separate policy on this, which is where any discussion should occur: ]. ] | ] 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{tl|unblockabuse}}== | |||
| This template is being used to tag pages that are protected for "abuse" of the {{tl|unblock}} tag. As said protection is not sanctioned by the protection policy, and a tfd on it was improperly closed as a speedy keep, I'm not sure where to bring this up. It seems very clear to me that said protection should not be done. The main problem is that admins denying an unblock request are encouraged to remove the template. This naturally leads to reversions and the "need" for the abuse template. --] (] - ]) 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Something I just thought of is that there could be a system a little more fine-grained than either having the template or not having it. An admin, after reviewing a block, and deciding not to unblock, could change the tag to something like {{tl|unblock-reviewed}}, which would bump the user into another category, and leave any pertinent comments. This would mean that only "fresh" requests are in the main category, while still allowing users to request unblocking by keeping them in another unblock category. | |||
| :Of course, adding {{tl|unblock}} again after the request had already been reviewed may ultimately lead to protection to stop abuse. But I think this is a good middle ground. Thoughts? --] (]) 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::How is this abuse, and why is protection warranted? --] (] - ]) 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See ] for a related discussion. ] 19:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Change to "Protecting the talk page of a blocked user"== | |||
| This section read: | |||
| : ''Users can edit their own User Talk pages, even while ]. This is in order to allow appeals and discussion about blocks. However, if users abuse this feature, and continue with ] on their own User Talk pages, they can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage.'' | |||
| I have changed it to read: | |||
| : ''Users can edit their own User Talk pages, even while ]. This is in order to allow appeals and discussion about blocks. However, if a user abuses this feature, and continues with ] or ] such as excessive personal attacks on his own User Talk page, the page can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage.'' | |||
| This covers a common case of protection of the talk page--where for instance the editor blocked for personal attacks simply continues the offending behavior, or intensifies it, once blocked. I have also changed the grammar a little to avoid use of the ugly "they" form. --] 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Who is a new user? == | |||
| Protection policy often says about new users or very new users. What's the criterion for such a term? A user who joined more than a month or someone who contributed to Misplaced Pages? Is there any definitions for (very) new user? | |||
| --] 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Newness is only relevant for ]. It currently affects ''unregistered users'' and ''accounts less than 4 days old''. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "Protecting certain ''"system administration"'' pages." == | |||
| Okay, I don't get this. What are those supposed to be protected for? If they're at high risk for vandalism, sure, but many "system administration" templates are not included in many pages (some aren't included in any pages at all, but are substed) and therefore can't conceivably be called serious vandalism risks. What exactly is the reason for protecting a template like (not to point fingers, just as an example) {{tl|moveprotected}}? It certainly qualifies under current policy, but has a grand total of . . . six inclusions. And it's not even substed. —] (] • ]) 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Protecting a user subpage for security == | |||
| I have my PGP public key stored in a subpage of my user page. Is it permissible for me to protect this subpage? It is currently very easy for someone to replace the key with another, and since no one edits the page anyway, it doesn't seem like protection would be a very big deal. Feedback, thoughts? Thanks. --] <font color="#007f00">]</font> 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Linked to by main page == | |||
| I think the current wording is a bit problematic. First off, I don't think high-profile articles and featured articles should usually be protected, by any means. But when vandalism is getting out of hand, even the most dogmatic of us seem to agree that protection is needed. Right now it reads "It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." | |||
| I don't think that reflects the reality of dealing with high-profile, breaking news type stuff, or that even the most innocent and uncontroversial FA can sometimes need protection. For example, a coordinated vandalbot attack (which is less common at the moment but has happened)... there's no reason not to protect an article to stop such an attack. But what's more, sometimes uncoordinated vandalism simply gets out of hand... with 3-5 vandal edits a minute, like we saw while ] was linked to from the main page for example. There's also instances of people wanting to insert slander or otherwise untrue claims into breaking news articles... if they won't stop doing it, sometimes the article just need to be protected to preserve the quality of the article. | |||
| We allow anonymous editting (and editting in general) because it usually improves articles... if it gets to a point where it's just causing huge problems, we need to turn it off briefly. The protection policy should reflect this. A dozen vandals an hour... protection isn't really needed if a lot of good editors are sitting on the article. 5 vandalisms a minute? That's rare, but typically protection is called for then. --] 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that this is the protection policy - there's nothing on main page links on the semi-protection policy. So anon and new users can, by policy, be prevented from editing main page linked articles. Now whether the semi-protection page should be clearer on this issue too... --] 06:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The spirit of the rule has always been to only protect where truly necessary (a vandalbot attack, as you mention, would be one such situation), and to limit protection to as short a period as possible, when an article is on or is linked from the Main Page. This ought to apply equally to full and semi-protection; remember that the purpose is to keep these high-profile articles as open as possible to new contributors, many of whom are likely to be anonymous. | |||
| ::This is a situation where the rule should express principles of general application, and leave common sense to fill in the gaps. --] (]) 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Case in point, Today's FA-- {{la|Lost (TV series)}}-- is of course undergoing vandal bombardment, but no substantive "improvement" to the article. In fact, with the amount of vandalism/reverting since it was removed from semi-protection-- about 80 or so in the last few hours-- the article is actually starting to degrade in quality as nonsense is creeping in. For instance, one that the series "is property of the Communist Party of America," which remained in the article through seven subsequent edits. My suggestion is that, as this demonstrates, semi-protection would be a good route for Main Page featured articles. --<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Page protection as a tool for subverting the "Good Article" nomination process == | |||
| (Cross-posted from ]). | |||
| I'm thinking some sophisticated users could "play the sytem" with respect to a controversial topic, if that topic is up for "Good Article" nomination. They could | |||
| # start an artificial controvery | |||
| # request protection | |||
| # argue until the "Good Article" reviewers give up and yank the nomination (which does '''not''' take long) | |||
| Doesn't automagic acceptance of a page protection request mean that one unhappy camper (or individual with a highly partisan POV) can thumb his/her nose at the world, at will? Just wondering. | |||
| And ... do some particular admins have an affection for protecting pages.. or at the very least, an over-fast trigger-finger ... making "playing the system" even easier? Do admins ever sit around and think, "If I protect this page, it is a disservice to the community, because it subverts the 'Good Article' nomination process?" Wondering again... | |||
| --] 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits to protected talk pages? == | |||
| From the project page: | |||
| :Edits can be made to already protected pages via {{tl|Editprotected}} requests. | |||
| If both an article and its talk page are protected, and I desire that an administrator edit the article or its talk page, then on which page should such a request be placed? --] (]) 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You could try the talk page of the administrator who protected it. For this and several other reasons, discussion pages should ''never'' be fully protected except for the amount of time necessary to clean up whatever vandalism. What talk page is fully protected? —]→] • 21:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::, For example: ]. "NEDM" is one of the popular fads on a web site called YTMND. The ] article was deleted for non-notability along with several other articles about individual YTMND fads. ] is to turn non-notable articles into redirects to an article about a broader subject, and ] at one time redirected to ], but it was re-deleted and re-protected for reasons that I could not understand from the history of the ] article. --] (]) 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Nearly all the deleted protected pages are eventually cleared anyway. —]→] • 01:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==CSS link== | |||
| The word "css" in this policy is wikilinked to a disambiguation page, and I don't know what it means. If it's ], the wikilink should be piped to that article. ] 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved}} ] 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| == Fully locking closed discussions: afd / tfd / cfd / mfd == | |||
| I was wondering how come we don't fully lock closed afd/tfd/cfd/mfd discussions? since no one is adviced to edit them after they are finished anyway. Who actually checks the history when looking at old discussion to see that they are no temperered with? Furthermore since an admin closes the discussion it would be pretty convenient to lock it at the same time. ] 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : <small>Note: copied from ] per suggestion.</small> | |||
| *Mostly because there's no need to. People rarely "tamper" with closed discussions; this is only relevant if the closure is under discussion, at which point the tampering will be exceedingly obvious. Note that some closes are made by non-admins, and in general it's an extra step to an already lengthy process. In short, the benefit is too small to warrant the extra workload. (]) 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "Protected and deleted" == | |||
| This seems a measure only to be taken in extreme circumstances, and currently misused. Yes, it's a tricky one, particularly when a page is created about a person as a forum for abuse; however, this then means that no page may be created about that person, or about anyone else with the same name. I'd like at least to see a reason for it in every case, as at the moment there are such pages with no explanation whatsoever. As a user, I'm left confused and with an unhappy feeling of being censored. | |||
| :This is done specifically when pages are repeatedly re-created. Links to the reasons for the deletion are given in the template. —]→] • 07:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Is there any disagreement? == | |||
| I would like to protect ], ], ], and ] to prevent recreation. Does anyone find this controversial? --<font color="Gray">]</font> <font color="LightSeaGreen">]</font><sub>]</sub> 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Why would you want to do that? Most of those don't seem to be the target of frequent re-creation. ] 09:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sysops editing protected pages == | |||
| Over on {{lw|External links}} we've had two incidents where the page was protected, and a Sysop (two separate individuals) edited the page to alter the guideline, without first discussing their change on the talk page, and in both instances where there was also unresolved opposition to such a change. Is this acceptable behaviour? --] 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :From my understanding of the policy, that is completely unacceptable behavior. The administrators, from what you've told me, were abusing their page protection powers to go against consensus. That's never allowed. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Automatic Expiration == | |||
| Automatically ] has now been implemented. We should now address the policy ramifications of it. I think most protections should be made temporary. This is essentially already specified by policy. Specifically, almost all semi-protections should be made temporary since people easily forget them. What do people think? ] - ] 20:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cascading semi-protection== | |||
| It's been brought to my attention that cascading semi-protection is possible. I find this quite surprising, as it enables anyone with a non-new account to semi-protect pages. | |||
| Consequently, I don't believe that cascading semi-protection should ever be applied for any reason. If a page merely requires semi-protection, there's no reason why the sysop can't manually semi-protect the transcluded elements (if need be). | |||
| I propose that such this prohibition be added to the protection policy. —] 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Having just learned that the cascading protection actually is '''full''' (meaning that non-sysops can '''fully''' protect pages), I've decided to be bold and add the prohibition to the policy. —] 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for being proactive on this. ] - ] 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Media mention == | |||
| I think that if an article is mentioned by the media(especially TV), it should be monitored closely for vandalism, if not semiprotected for a day(I'm primarily suggesting the former, as the latter violates Misplaced Pages policy).--] 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cascading protection: request for description == | |||
| Would somebody more familiar with cascading protection please add a description to the policy (or wikilink) to describe ''what'' it is? I could probably do it, but for the sake of accuracy it might be better if I didn't just describe how I ''think'' it works. Thanks, —] <sup>]</sup> 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed merge with ] == | |||
| It's been suggested that we merge this page with WP:SEMI (see ]). I whipped ] earlier today and found that the two policy pages merged very easily. Constructive comments welcome (either at ] or ]). -- ] 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==], libel and fully protected pages== | |||
| From a post by ] on ], following my protection of an article with potentially libelous information in it: | |||
| {{blockquote|... do you think ] needs revising? e.g. it says "During an edit war, do not ask for a page to be protected on a specific version or, if it has already been protected, reverted to some version other than the current one.", which in the case of potential libel seems wrong. Also removing possible libel is not a permitted case in ]. I suspect this incident could be the basis for improving policy. ] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| Any thoughts? – <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">]_]</span> 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version" == | |||
| >Protection is not an endorsement of the current version | |||
| I have to say that this policy offends me. I get in an edit war with some one-minded user, I goto the trouble of explaining every edit I make on the talk page, and they simply revert my edits repeatedly without so much as a reply. So what happens? the page gets protected under THEIR version. If one user goes through the trouble of explaining their edits, and another is reverting without discussing using offensive edit notes, why should their version be graced with the benefit of sitting around as the protected version for god knows how long until I am allowed to request unprotection? And what good will that do? So long as their version is protected, they are not going to discuss the changes. So as soon as it's unprotected, it's just going to continue warring. ] 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The glib answer is to refer you to ]. | |||
| :The longer, more serious answer, is to say that it is in no way whatsoever the responsibility of an intervening administrator who chooses to protect a page to prevent edit warring or other disruptive action to decide which version of a page ought to be the one that is preserved. The only exception is content which is immediately harmful, such as ]. This goes to the heart of the reasons that protection is used. Protection is essentially used to stop edit wars and force people to engage in discussion on the talk page. If someone is clearly not explaining their edits, then it should be easy to build a consensus for the version that is well explained, which can be applied once the article is unprotected. Disruptive users who refuse to cooperate in discussion, or refuse to participate in consensus building, can be dealt with through other means. --] (]) 06:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::But you've made my point for me. "Protection is essentially used to stop edit wars and force people to engage in discussion". The page in this was protected WHILE one party had explained all their edits on the talk page and the other party was blindly reverting anyway. And the blind reverter ended up having their version protected. There is no way this situation would cause them to engage in discussion and at worst, may validate their feeling that they are right to just revert without discussion. It's one thing if, say, it were an article like ] where there are a dozen editors who watch the page and read the 'talk' daily, and there will be lots of outside input towards consensus, but when it's a small page with little watch-ship, noone's going to discuss the issues while the page is protected, and there won't be any consensus beyond the one party who has explained themself. People who are disruptive and refuse to participate in consensus building can be dealt with through other means, I don't see why protection was warrented in this case, where one party had already explained themself, and the other was blindly reverting. This should have been dealt with via the 'other means' you refer to. ] 08:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Protection of archives == | |||
| I just got an idea for an addition to the protection policy. I think that any archives of talk pages that haven't been edited for a week (to ensure the archive is complete) should be protected. This would prevent the vast majority of vandalism or accidental responses to cut-and-paste or move archive pages. | |||
| Also, it wouldn't be too hard to write a bot that would do this automatically. It would have sysop status so it could protect pages, and it would simply protect any page in the ''talk'' or ''user talk'' namespaces that has the {{tl|talkarchive}} tag, has had no edits for a week, has the word ''archive'' in its name, and is a subpage of a page that links to them. | |||
| I see no downside to this addition to policy, and it would certainly be very useful, so I'd like to establish some consensus here before adding it to the policy. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Fuck" and Firefly TV Series == | |||
| Regarding the entry on the word "fuck." Under part 3, "Common alternatives," paragraph 3 lists serveral television shows where fuck is substituted with another, inoffensive word. | |||
| The cancelled Fox sci-fi series, Firefly, is listed and reference is made to the characters cursing in Mandarin Chinese. | |||
| In fact, the characters used the english word "hump" in place of "fuck." The article makes no mention of this. | |||
| I would like to add it. | |||
| ] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Indefinate Sprotection on Userpages == | |||
| The line ''User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user'' is kind of odd. I've seen a couple requests at RPP quoting this. The question is do we really need this? According to ], while the userpages are in your userspace, you don't own them. Others can/do make changes (especially in cases of ]). Should we continue to allow users to just arbitrarily ask for indefinite sprotection of anything they want in their userspace? -]<small>(]·])</small> 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My understanding is that it's not really supposed to happen. The current policy states, "Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seems only slightly contradictory. I mean, if one of your pages in userspace is getting hit, then that's a reason to protect. Just because "it says I can" doesn't seem like a good enough reason. -]<small>(]·])</small> 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :User pages can be sprotected when required by any user when the page is being defaced. Permanent semiprotection goes against our wiki spirit. Even ] is unprotected from time to time. -- ] 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though this may be true, this is not what the current or the past semi-protection policies say. Should this policy line be changed to reflect, like the other two lines describing indefinite protection, that this only applies to userpages which are "subject to vandalism"? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Disregarding the "it's the wiki way" non-argument, can anyone show how prohibiting semi-protection of userpages indefinitely/when it's not the target of vandalism actually improves the encyclopedia? Even better, does anyone have evidence to say that leaving userpages open to anons and new users generally leads to improvements in those pages? – ] 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that's really the point. ] also says about sprotection that it's not ''to prohibit anonymous editing in general''. That's all this seems to be. ] says (about protection) that ''protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical''. We've got contradictory things all around. And it just goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, the anyone can edit part. Now, I wouldn't be against ''move'' protection of userpages (I move protect mine and talk) because they might not ever be a reason to move it. It's just the editing part. -]<small>(]·])</small> 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This "it's the wiki way" argument is highly unconvincing. We block/protect hundreds of users/pages every day, which clearly prevents people editing and is "against the wiki way". If we've got contradicting policies, then that's something that obviously needs sorting out. So, I reiterate my questions: Does having indefinitely protected userpages ''harm'' the encyclopedia in some way? Does anyone have evidence to refute the claim that 99% of anon edits to userpages are vandalism? – ] 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, your ignoring everything else and just casting all annons as vandals. Do you have anything that says we should disallow it besides "annons are vandals"? That "wiki way" is the way it has been and probably how it always will be. Why should we preemptively protect random userpages? -]<small>(]·])</small> 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've just said, we go against the "wiki way" all the time, and a few extra protected userpages isn't going to make this place significantly less a wiki. Also, I have not once said we should pre-emptively protect 'random' userpages, nor have I said that all anons are vandals. Either you're misunderstanding me, in which case you should re-read my previous comments, or you attempting to construct a strawman, in which case you should stop. Please answer my questions, the main one being ''how does having indefinitely protected userpages harm the encyclopedia''? – ] 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It does not hurt the encyclopedia. -]<small>(]·])</small> 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So there's no real problem then is there? Glad we've settled that. – ] 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think in this case there needs to be a "why" reason rather than a "why not". -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This wiki has no firm rules. As such, users can do as they see fit unless it's explicitely forbidden by policy, not the other way round (i.e. users can't do anything unless explicitely allowed by policy). So, in actual fact, this is a question of "why should we forbit it?" (the question I'm proposing to you), not "why should we allow it?" (the question you're proposing to me). – ] 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (deindenting) I've already given reasons above as to why I don't think indefinate semiprotection of userpages on demand is a good idea (my first and third responces). Among others, it contidicts other policies and guidelines. -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That argument doesn't work. You're saying, essentially, "this policy must change because it contradicts ]". I could go over to WP:USER right now and say "this policy needs to change because it contradicts the protection policy]]". – ] 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protection to allow for vandalism recovery == | |||
| Is it a good idea to semi-protect a heavily vandalized page — in this case ] — for one day to give users the chance to recover the article from vandalism. The problem with that page is that it has received vandalism at a high pace during the last weeks interspersed by legit edits and partial reverts and there seem not be enough adept watchers to keep pace. ] 13:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If someone asked me to protect a page for that reason, I'd probably grant it, since I would argue that it clearly helps the encyclopedia. Whether it needs to be codified in policy is another question, however. – ] 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protection against heavy anonymous vandalism == | |||
| Related to the previous question: Could longer semi-protection be a legit method to protect a page from heavy and continous vandalism that comes from anonymous users with changing IP addresses if there are not enough enough adept watchers who are able to properly restore the page. ] 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, yeah. Of course. – ] 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure if it's enshrined in policy, but it's been ''de facto'' for a while now. -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:29, 25 December 2024
 |
This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages. To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Operational pages
I propose updating the policy to explicitly cover the protection of operational pages used by bots and user scripts. While many of these pages are already protected, it would be better to include something in the policy. User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop is the most recent target of a disruptive edit, but this has also happened in the last year with User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Shutoff, User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin, User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run, User:GreenC bot/button, User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links, and User:Yapperbot/kill/FRS. If there is consensus, I would like to add a Protection of operational pages section under the Uncommon protections section as follows:
Operational pages used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes, but is not limited to, configuration pages, data pages, log pages, and status pages. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason.
Note that the intrapage links will omit the page name if this is added to the policy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I updated the proposed text slightly to remove
Similar to templates
which is unnecessary and I also updated the proposed location since it doesn't really fit in the Protection by namespace section. Most of the protections for this reason are in User space, but some are in Misplaced Pages space, Module space, and Template space. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC) - I went ahead and added the section with some minor rewording, and with one significant change: I added
principally
as an additional restriction to ensure this doesn't extend to cases where software happens to use a page (e.g., protecting Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee because a user script extracts the list of ArbCom members would not be covered). - If anyone has comments or concerns about this change to encode common practice in policy, please let me know. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Should some templates be fully protected?
Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:High-risk templates
Are there any "very" high risk templates or modules which need full protection or is template protection adequate? The guideline Misplaced Pages:High-risk templates is not clear on this matter, and there is an ongoing discussion about the protection of Module:WikiProject banner — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course there are, and they mostly already are. Ones used on 10's of millions of pages which could cause severe disruption are good candidates, as are many that are part of the system interface. The FPROT request queue is seldom backlogged and serves as an effective check against protection. The policy (Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#High-risk pages and templates) already makes allowances for this. If guideline text is outdated, it's a wiki..... — xaosflux 21:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In other policy, Misplaced Pages:Template editor makes passing mention of full protection. It's probably also worth re-reading the RfC, which talks about 'temporary', 'extraordinary', 'thousands of transclusions', and other things. -- zzuuzz 21:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the 2013 RfC highlights the argument in favor of allowing template editors to edit many or all of the FPROT templates:
While full protection is an ideal temporary solution for articles that have demonstrated a state of overwhelming controversy, it is less ideal as a permanent precautionary measure for templates. Many editors who have shown an aptitude for coding templates, and have earned the trust of the community in doing their work, may not necessarily be administrators, nor even be interested in becoming administrators.
Non-administrators do have the ability to request edits at fully-protected templates for administrators to enact on their behalf, but there is a significant shortage of administrators who have the time and necessary skills to do this reliably. Coders also tend to find this extra step more than a mere annoyance: Technical work is largely rewarding to technically-minded people in that they value the hands-on experience. Many end up choosing to avoid having to verbalize uncontroversial edit requests made to convince someone else to enact an edit on their behalf, by simply avoiding work on fully-protected templates altogether.
- I think WP will be better off letting template editors work on FPROT templates. If there are template editors who have lost the trust of the community, the right answer is to remove their template editor rights, rather than FPROT the templates they work on. (Bias alert: I am an template editor). — hike395 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am of two minds on this one. I am a very experienced template editor, and I mostly know my limits. When I have doubts about my ability to successfully implement an edit, I test it in the sandbox, ask on the talk page or VPT, or both. Every once in a while, the Dunning-Kruger effect kicks in, and I do not have doubts but get something wrong. If I see the problem, I either quickly revert or quickly fix the problem. About once a year, I am dunned by other template editors and admins for such behavior, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, I figure. Template editors fix a lot of stuff around here.
- A few times per year, I encounter a fully protected template or other transcluded page that I can't edit, so I put the edit in the sandbox and put in an edit request on the template's page, with a full explanation of the esoteric change that I am requesting. Admins have always gotten to these requests within a couple of days, IIRC. About half the time, a sensible admin will lower the page's protection to template protection because it no longer meets the FP requirements.
- About the same number of times per year, I encounter some nice-to-have fix that I want to make to an FP page, but I don't bother with an edit request because it seems trivial. That, to me, is the only downside to denying FP template editing to template editors. Overall, I'd say that I can live with this inconvenience for the tradeoff of protecting these pages against template editors who are less careful than I am; there have been a few of them over the years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the 2013 RfC highlights the argument in favor of allowing template editors to edit many or all of the FPROT templates:
- Pulling a random number out of the air, but anything with >1 mil transclusions probably should be FPROT, if only as a final check to make sure folks are really paying attention to what they are doing. Raising the protection on a template because one template editor made mistakes one time seems a bit overkill, and a word to said template editor would probably be more effective, especially as it would leave a (digital) paper trail for if those sorts of things were a regular occurrence. The above being said, I have no issue with having TPER on pages with >1mil transclusions if they're fairly static or there's a TPE that has demonstrated they can update the template properly (i.e. sandboxing first, etc). Primefac (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages, there are just 198 template and module pages with 999K or more transclusions. Looking at the list, I see a lot of low-level, sometimes intricately used, tools that I (a template editor) wouldn't dare mess with without a discussion, along with some pretty simple templates that should not need frequent maintenance. Heck, I even created one of them, {{Short description/lowercasecheck}}, but now that it is used in six million pages, I wouldn't like to see template editors monkeying with it casually. I don't see a problem with one million as a threshold for automatic FP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Under WP:FULL, the protection policy includes
Pages that are transcluded very frequently
on the list of pages that areusually fully protected for an indefinite period of time
. That seems pretty clear. It might be worth having a report somewhere for pages with more than one million transclusions that aren't fully protected, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)