Misplaced Pages

talk:Protection policy: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:42, 11 April 2007 view sourceGene Nygaard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users90,047 edits "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version"—a delusion? a lie? or both?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:29, 25 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,509 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy/Archive 18) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{pp-semi-indef}}
{{Not edit protected}}
{{archive box|
{{Talk header|WT:PROTECT|WT:PPOL}}
*]<br> December 2003 - February 2005
{{WikiProject banner shell|
*]<br> April 2005 - February 2007
{{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:
== "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. --]&nbsp;(]) 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)
:I've felt vaguely similar concerns, but not over general quality so much as a very specific issue: references. In principle, everything on WIkipedia is supposed to be verifiable; surely protection therefore '''is''' at least a ''tiny'' "endorsement" to the extent that it means the page consists of factual (if possibly irrelevant/badly written/NPOV) content? If not, then… well… perhaps a qualification for protection should be citing sources, or at least having the "no cited sources" warning. Right up until I encountered the phrase "not an endorsement of the current version", I was feeling very good about the fact that at least some pages are "guarenteed" trustworthy through protection. To put this another way, I'm wondering if a page has ever been locked, or ever would be, while carrying an "unreferenced" tag (which in my opinion would actually be a ''good'' thing, so that articles wouldn't just dwell in limbo but immediately stick to that warning until the information is verified by someone). How, if at all, has this been discussed? <math>\sim</math> ] ] 16:38, 27 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)

:You are both proposing the creation of an admin bot and a change in policy to make archives uneditable? That's quite silly. There is nothing special about archived talk pages. There are various reasons to edit them (bypass redirects when certain redirects are deleted, fix transclusions of certain templates, rm categories, etc). The goal should be to ensure that archives are useful for future readers, not making sure that their state is completely unedited from the moment they have been archived.

:And of course, we don't protect pages to prevent against vandalism that hasn't already happened &mdash; there is wide consensus on this matter. And it is doubtful that consensus regarding the creation of admin bots is going to change, especially for this issue &mdash; if protecting the main page isn't enough to change consensus, the protection of ''talk archives'' is not going to. --- ] 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed. Protection is very un-wikiwiki like and using it any more then unnecessary is a Bad Thing♣. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 06:21, 12 March 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)

:Sounds good... but you would need to make the request on the talkpage their, not here. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 06:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

== Indefinite 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? &ndash; ] 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? &ndash; ] 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''? &ndash; ] 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. &ndash; ] 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 forbid it?" (the question I'm proposing to you), not "why should we allow it?" (the question you're proposing to me). &ndash; ] 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 the userpage policy". I could go over to ] right now and say "this policy needs to change because it contradicts the protection policy". &ndash; ] 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
::Right now, we need to change one of them. I would prefer changing this one (especially since the "not to prohibit anonymous editing in general" will never get changed on this one). There is no justification to indefinitely protect userpages other than to prohibit annon editing in general. -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Firstly, what is your definition of "prohibiting anon editing in general"? Secondly, while users don't 'own' their userpages, we let them do what they like with them unless they start adding offensive content or fair use images or whatever. ] is much, much more relaxed on userpages, the ] doesn't even apply. None of the points you've made hold any water. &ndash; ] 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
*SPP for Userspace should be used to stop vandalism, but should not be indefinite, I've come across several of these pages lately (which were also NOT in the protected pages category for review) and set expirys on them (usually 2 fortnights). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
*:To that end I'd support moving "User pages when requested" form the indefinite section to the temporary section (I must have missed the discussion where they got to be indefinite in the first place and don't have the gumtion to go researching policy difs right now). — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
*::<small>(I recall adding wording to that effect in December. Diff: )</small><br> The question of ''why'' they should only be temporary remains unanswered. &ndash; ] 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
*:::I'd say the reverse should be looked at, why must they be indef protected? Why should policy exist to just arbitraily protect anything? — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
*::::I direct you to above to avoid repeating myself. Perhaps this is a wiki-philosophical difference between us. &ndash; ] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, a short while ago a nameless admin went through ] and unprotected a number of userpages. For several days afterwards his talk page was flooded with complaints from users. I think we need to pay attention to the practicalities of this, in that allowing indef-protected userpages will cause less frustration and disruption (for want of better words). &ndash; ] 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm with Xaosflux on this one. Why do we have to fight here? What we've asking is for you to justify the indefinate protection of userpages. We've told you why not and you've dismissed us every time. Your turn. Tell us a why reason now. Defend the current policy without bringing up wiki-philosophy. Ball's in your court. -]<small>(]·])</small> 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
::Because it doesn't hurt anything and there's no compelling reason not to if the user wishes it. That ''is'' the justification. Users can revert ] on their userpages, if they want to fill it full of crappy userboxes they can fill it full of crappy userboxes, if they want to post their life story they can post their life story, if they want it '']'' they can have it deleted. Allowing them to have it protected if they want it protected isn't that outrageous a suggestion. &ndash; ] 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, it's still within my rights to refuse to do them then. -]<small>(]·])</small> 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course. &ndash; ] 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::*I agree with Steel. Oh, and of course Royalguard is correct that admins aren't obliged to, well, oblige. ] 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Now that ] is working having >4200 pages is making it's usefulnes well, less useful. I've filed a bug report to add a namespace selector, but it still shows that we have thousands of uneditable pages without expirations, and filling this with userpages ''just because'' isn't helping matters. While of course no admin is obliged to protect one of these pages, having it in the policy prevents any other admin from removing it without wheeling. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::*This brings us right back to the previously discussed point of why anyone would need to remove these protections. Once the per namespace search is implimented this will become a non-issue. &ndash; ] 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*That said, and while IPs can easily contribute to main-article space I can't see many reason why IPs would need to edit userpages (apart from vandalism). If they want to be part of the ''community'' register. ] 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::If that is the goal, it could be achieved without the need for coutless page protections, we just update it site-wide... — ] <sup>]</sup> 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree, but then there is the ''thin edge of the wedge'' argument. Anyway I found very enlighening. ] 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I see good edits and bad edits, even anons reverting vandalism in there. We've seen that any determined vandal will have no problem registering an account by now. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the clause from the page. Hopefully we'll get some ] if anyone objects to me removing it. --] ] 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:24 hours and no contest? --] ] 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::Alright, 23. I'm at BST which is obviously UTC + 1. Duhh. --] ] 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I will when I'm back off wikibreak and have the time and motivation to discuss further. Be patient <tt>:)</tt> &ndash; ] 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:*I do object to the removal. It really is no big deal if users want their userpage (not their talk page) semi'ed. The protected page list shows a bunch of examples. ] 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::My main concern is that this contradicts the clause underneath it that states that sprotection shouldn't be used to prohibit anonymous editing in general, which I really do feel this does. --] ] 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::*Yes. It is an exception in a specific case to a rule not to protect in general. ] 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Just like userpages are the exception to lots of other rules: ], ]/], ], etc. &ndash; ] 13:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Exceptions are always available, but why not make them on a case-by-case basis, rather than namespace: basis? — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Because it's the nature of the namespace (i.e. being people's personal pages) that allows for the exception. Again, WP:OWN, etc. &ndash; ] 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::] trumps ] in userspace: ''As a tradition, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. '''However, pages in user space still do belong to the community''''' (emphases my own). So, they do not own their userpages, they just have more freedom with them. -]<small>(]·])</small> 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Precisely. &ndash; ] 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::More freedom doesn't mean "whatever" though. -]<small>(]·])</small> 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Right. And we don't allow copyright violations, grossly offensive content and the like on userpages. I personally wouldn't put page protection on the same level as advocating paedophilia or breaking the law or whatever. &ndash; ] 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

=== Indefinite Sprotection on Userpages (section break) ===

I still quite strongly feel that unconditional protection of userpages is contrary to the beliefs of the wiki way. Of course they should be protected in instances of extreme vandalism, but I feel that users are saying "I ] this, hands off to new users since I don't trust you". That is contrary to the wiki way of letting anyone edit. --] ] 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:Userpages are except from the 3RR; users ''are'' allowed to say "I ] this, hands off to new users since I don't trust you". Also, as I mentioned above, given the number of pages we protect and users we block daily, having a few userpages protected here and there won't make this any less a wiki. Incidentally, ], a wiki, fully protects its featured texts. There is nothing in the concept of the wiki which says that all pages must be kept open unless the sky is threatening to fall. &ndash; ] 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::Wikibooks also protects finished modules if I remember right, but someone who's a sysop there failed to get past RFA here for even suggesting that we semiprotect "finished" articles. Not even same language wiki's are the same in terms of policies and how the community works. -]<small>(]·])</small> 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Right. So userpage protection doesn't go against any "wiki way". &ndash; ] 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It all depends on which wiki you're talking about. Here we don't lock "finished articles". So speaking from the POV of Misplaced Pages, the 💕 it does go against the wiki way. If this were Wiki-books/source/news then it wouldn't. But it isn't. This is a different community. -]<small>(]·])</small> 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::What we're actually discussing is whether en.wikipedia.org's policy should allow userpage protection on request or not. An argument that appeals to some "wiki way" is a poor one. &ndash; ] 01:28, 7 April 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. &ndash; ] 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'd protect for this reason, but the reason is simply vandalism, and if it was high-paced it may warrant longer then a day even. The vandalism reason in the current policy should suffice though. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 1 April 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. &ndash; ] 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)
::: Oops, sorry, this case is already mentioned in the policy. ] 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy redirects ==
I'm about to fix all the double redirects to ]. If, for some reason, these pages were to be split again, anyone can check my contrib history for the redirects that were changed. --- ] 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
*Good work on the merge! ] 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

== Using the less prominent protection template ==
I started a discussion at ] about when to use that template. It puts a small padlock at the upper right corner, without explaining why the page is protected. I'm concerned about the lack ofprominence and explanation. (I understand that we use ] for long-term semiprotection of biographies of living persons, and there are good reasons for that, but I feel full protection should generally be explained.) If you have an opinion about guidelines for using the template, please express it at ]. ] 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
theres this article that i know is wrong but im a noob and its semi-protected so i cant do anything. should i request unprotection or wait till im more than four days old?

== Advice ==
] is a salvaging of an old, VERY bad list which had been invaded by advertising. It's not well-monitored, but the semi-protection guidelines only suggest indefinate semi-protection for not well-monitored biographies. Would it be appropriate to semi-protect it, to keep off the vultures? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
*Please make such requests on ]. The short answer is "probably". ] 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

== Template protection ==
Hello all. When a high-risk template is protected, should we be putting {{tl|protected template}} at the top of the template's page, or is {{tl|permprot}} on the talk page sufficient? I always thought it was, but I've just come across a spate of requests to add {{tl|protected template}} to a bunch of templates while going through ], and am discussing the best thing to do with the user who made the requests, ]. I can't find a guideline or even a rule of thumb about which is best ... personally, I think {{tl|permprot}} on the talk page is fine, but then why would we have an {{tl|protected template}} template? ]&nbsp;] 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{tl|Protected template}} adds the template into a category or two, whereas {{tl|Permprot}} doesn't. Other than that there isn't much difference. I don't really consider this a big deal; If someone makes an edit protected request, I'll grant it (as I did earlier with one from Qxz), but if I happen upon an untagged protected template I'd probably just leave it. I suppose {{tl|Protected template}} would be preferable if you're a categorisation nut. &ndash; ] 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Just to clarify something that Steel359 may not be aware of, or may have overlooked: {{tl|permprot}} goes on the ''talk page'', whereas {{tl|protected template}} goes on the ''template page''. So it's not a case of choosing one or the other. I was under the impression that ''both'' were needed; up until today many protected templates had ''neither''; since the talk pages can be edited I've gone round and added {{tl|permprot}} to them all but I can't add {{tl|protected template}} to the templates because they're protected – ] 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Another thing, too – {{tl|permprot}} is used on non-template pages, whereas {{tl|protected template}} is template-specific – ] 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I was aware permprot went on the talk and protected template went on the template itself, but didn't notice that permprot was used on non-template pages. &ndash; ] 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

==sprotect tagging but not protecting==
I've noticed a few articles lately being tagged but not actually protected. Doing this is undoubtedly a disincentive to some ip vandals. But is it appropriate? Views? &mdash;] 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:Tagging pages as protected when they're not should be avoided, since it's misleading to everybody. I'm unconvinced it actually deters vandals, since the "edit this page" link still glares at them (as opposed to "view source" when the page is actually protected). &ndash; ] 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:It only deters the legitimate editors for the reasons stated above. 95% of the time it is new editors who think they are actually applying protection in good faith. They should be pointed to ] and ]. There is even a user talk page template: {{tl|noprotection}}. The remainder of the time there are ] issues. In most cases the editors welcome a pointer towards policy or process. There is simply never any good reason to keep a protected tag on an unprotected page. There is even a bot which removes them now. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

== Misinformation?! ==

What if you protect a page that has vandalism? And where do you go to report such behaviour?--] 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

:You can report vandalism in protected pages at ]. --]&nbsp;(]) 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:put {{t1|editprotected}} on it's talk page. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

::That's also a good option, although AIV is often faster, which is useful in some cases. --]&nbsp;(]) 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== Color-code locks ==

Why not try color-coding locks?

] ''semi-protection''<br>
] ''full protection''<br>
] ''move protection''<br>
] ''cascade protection''<br>
— <font face="Verdana"><small>]] ]</small></font> 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:Those images look a bit childish, sort of like ]. However, you'll probably be interested in ] (). ]<sup>]</sup> § 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

== Templates on semi-protected pages ==

Until recently the protection-confirmation page said that pages semi-protected for a finite period shouldn't be tageed with the {{tl|sprotected}} template; that's now disappeared. What happened? I've seen a number of cases recently where a page has been sprotected, another editor has added the template, and no-one has bothered to remove it after the protection has expired. --] (]) 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{user|Centrx}} would be the person to speak to about this . &ndash; ] 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. --] (]) 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

== Semi-protection of userpages ==

Why can people get their userpages sprotected when there is minimal/no vandalism to them? It seems to be in contradiction to the bit that says sprotection shouldn't be used "to prohibit anonymous editing in general". If lots of vandalism is present on a userpage then I see no reason why it can't be sprotected, but we seem to be endorsing pre-emptive sprotection here. I'd strongly support the removal of that clause from the policy. --] ] 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well the users have always been able to ] freely edit their userspace, and even ], so I don't see any reason what we should discourage them from protecting it as well. Besides, each user may have his own reasons for the protection; perhaps one user would like to leave Misplaced Pages and doesn't want anyone screwing with his userspace while he's gone?, or maybe he simply wants to have his userpage deleted permanently? We should think a bit differently here. ]<sup>]</font></sup> 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
::I think you're missing the point of what I was saying, a bit. The reasons you gave are probably good reasons to protect the pages. I just don't think pages should be protected "just because". If they want to leave and don't want it modified, that's a reason. "Because it's my userpage" seems to be a bit protective, like "I don't want anonymous users editing it, but other users can". Seems a bit exclusive, and the wiki is supposed to be about everyone being equal, including anons. Of course, sometimes we need to take certain measures to prevent anons editing, but saying "I don't trust anons to do it" seems unfair. --] ] 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:::This has been discussed at (reasonable) length above. See ]. &ndash; ] 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
::I just want to respond to Michaelas10 here. Yes we delete userpages on demand. But if someone wants to leave wikipedia and wants their userpage protected for a while then that is totally different than Joe Editor going "hey, don't let people touch my page". Same thing with permanent deletion. -]<small>(]·])</small> 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== What does "endorsement" mean? ==

"Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." Everything I've read and heard defending this claim seems to make the assumption that those who disagree with it are engaged in a petty edit war over a potentially protected page. Well, I wouldn't say I necessarily disagree with the idea of the phrase, but I find it rather vague on one particualr count: Does the concept of "endorsement" include "believed to be factual based on cited sources?" To repeat something I asked earlier on this page, would a protected page ever have an ] tag, as a temporary measure when no sources would be easily found, and the admins are too busy to look into the question? <math>\sim</math> ] ] 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:It basically is a protection for ourselves (ie, admins). It means that if we have to lock a page with full protection, especially because of an edit war, then we want to make sure that people know that we as admins, and possibly the community, may not endorse the current version. It probably will ''not'' contain vandalism or blatantly wrong facts, but may (or probably will in an edit war) contain disputed material. It's a warning that could be taken as "this article is in dispute right now, and this particular version might not be our best work. Check back later for better edited work". -]<small>(]·])</small> 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:*Indeed. Additionally, if user:A and user:B are in dispute and edit warring over an article, and user:Admin steps in and protects the page, he protects the page in whatever version he happens to find it in. If this is user:A's version, that does not mean that user:A is in the right with respect to the dispute. That also means that user:B does not get to ask to please have the page protected in the other version. Oh and yes, protected pages can have any kind of tags on them. ] 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for clearing things up a bit there. So now I'm wondering something slightly different -- has anyone ever floated the idea of having this be made clear on the template itself, given that many templates go into extra detail to explain equivalent things? <math>\sim</math> ] ] 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::*{{tl|protected}} says so. Do you think that is clear enuogh? ] 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, specicifically, I mean some phrase equivalent to "this is not an endorsement of the page's current version, nor a guarantee of neutrality, validity, or excellence." Even after seeing the template I used to naturally assume so, until I had read what I've since read (which makes sense now.) <math>\sim</math> ] ] 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::::*Yes,b ut unprotected pages aren't guaranteed to be neutral/valid/excellent either. ] 11:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::<s>Many people view them with additional suspicion, though, knowing that they are user-editable. The standard argument that might go in many people's heads without their fully realizing it is something like this:
:::::#Page A is untrustworthy because it can be edited by anyone.
:::::<s>#Page B cannot, in its current form, be edited by anyone; therefore, it is trustworthy.
:::::<s>Without some explanation along the lines I put, a lot of people are going to scratch their heads and say, "''You mean, you protected it and it wasn't even 100% satisfactory?''" -- especially those newbies and outsiders who, thanks to their conventional understanding of "encyclopedia," are ] without knowing it. Is there a way I could make this clearer? <math>\sim</math> ] ] 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)</s>
WHOA HOLD UP PLEASE DON'T RESPOND UNTIL I SORT THINGS OUT <math>\sim</math> ] ] 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:Uhhh... what? That's confusing. --] ] 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:OK, cooling down. Wow. I honestly just noticed that '''Yes, Lenoxus, the text "protection is not an endorsement of the current version" is on the template'''. ''Like you told me''. And I just thought you didn't understand what I was talking about, or something... So... stupid... so I change my mind a bit, and now feel simply that the link should maybe be bolded to make it more apparent to idiots like me. But I don't feel ''too'' strongly about it. (My guess is that I was thinking all along of ], which currently doesn't mention the endorsement thing. That's something I might eventually bring up, but I'm about to go on a moderate WikiBreak first.) Anyway, thanks for your responses and patience, Radiant. <math>\sim</math> ] ] 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== Protection templates? ==

Are we using the <nowiki>{{pp-semi-vandalism}}</nowiki> templates now? Because the <nowiki>{{sprotect}}</nowiki> templates are still up with no message. -- ] ] 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{]}} displays a message. --] ] 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::I was asking if we are now adopting <nowiki>{{pp-semi-vandalism}}</nowiki> to replace the older <nowiki>{{sprotect}}</nowiki> templates? -- ] ] 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Whoops, sorry, I misunderstood you. I have no idea :-p --] ] 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::Anybody else have any idea? -- ] ] 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::*If so I'm sure we'll redirect the old name there as well. ] 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
*Per ] I oppose the new templates as being too estoteric. With that being said if the old template will still work, with the same results then redirects are fine with me. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

== Gandhi's Death ==

Gandhi was never proven to be dead. He is still actually roaming about the African village of Nali. There have been many Gandhi sitings but nobody has gotten to talk to him because Gandhi has a severe case of polesticalifobia. Polesticalifobia is a fobia of which you fear talking to other people and you can only talk to animals. gandhi has been living in a hut in Nali for 94 years. He has been living off of grass and marijuana leaves. I'm sad to say that Gandhi is in bad conditions but he is immortal. He will never die. Go Gandhi Go! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->



== How Long? ==

On pages that are semi-protected, how long must a user have been registered for before they can edit such pages? {{unsigned}}

*Four days. Says so at the top of the policy. ] 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

== Preemptive Semi-Protection ==

I am suggesting that the disuse of preemptive semi-protection, as it is mandated in §2, to be removed from the policy. I believe that some articles(i.e.Recently Deceased Persons, Controversial events) or articles with topics that would be recently brought to sudden public interest, could benefit from use of preemptive semi-protection. Articles such as these, as any Wikipædian knows, are prone to vandalism, and at the same time, are bound to be suddenly viewed by large volumes of people. Of course, due to their nature, these articles ''will'' need to be edited, but the editing can be done by legitimate users. Obviously other policies and guidelines will have to govern this, but those are to be made.--] 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:Many editors would disagree with being called illegitimate, especially when they add much of the content. There is no reason to exclude unregistered editors if there has been no vandalism. If they are excluded you will never know what improvements might have been made. It's only when the trade-off between vandalism and good edits becomes not worth it that protection should be used. This is rarely known in advance. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:Semi-protection is not used to prohibit annon editing (and we've all agreed on that in terms of the mainspace). Period. That is one of the ]: ''The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate...Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering''. As it says, it's not debatable. Of course protection policy allows us to temporarily protect pages that are receiving heavy vandalism, but we can't just do it to exclude annons in general. -]<small>(]·])</small> 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think the issue is easily resolved by not doing it preemptively but reactively. If such articles are indeed prone to vandalism, we don't have to wait for several days, we can just drop the issue on ]. ] 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

=="Protection is not an endorsement of the current version"—a delusion? a lie? or both?==

Are the people who make the claim that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version" just totally oblivious to the world around them? Or are they deliberately trying to deceive us?

This will, of course, be something invoked in the case of content disputes. It will be invoked on the basis of someone's claim that "edit-warring" exists (usually without even any verification of that being the case by the protecting administrator).

As the project page says:
: "Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute on the related talk page."

Another rule provides:
:"However, unless consensus has been reached, pages should not be unprotected soon after protection without prior consultation with the admin who first protected the page."
In other words, failure to gain consensus means that the protected page cannot be changed. The protected version is in fact "endorsed" as the official version.

But according to another rule stated in the policy here, even ''consensus'' itself, as that term is used in Misplaced Pages jargon, is not sufficient:
:"Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless all parties agree to the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute."
This, by its own terms, requires something much stronger than ''consensus.'' It in fact '''requires unanimous consent''' to make changes once the page is protected. Nobody who is not an admin can make any changes; an admin can only do so with unanimous consent. Not an endorsement? Don't try to pull my leg.


{{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.}}
However, the version which is protected has a '''significant effect''' on the ensuing discussion. Not an endorsement? What difference does that make, if it in fact shifts the burden of proof in the ensuing discussions. If '''consensus''' at the very least, or something '''much stronger''' than consensus (unanimous consent) as stated in the rules here, is needed to make a change once the pages is protected, then the choice of the version to be protected quite clearly and obviously has the same effect as an endorsement of that version, whether it is described as being an endorsement or not. Is everyone involved in making this choice just deluded? Or is someone deliberately trying to pull the wool over our eyes?


Note that the intrapage links will omit the page name if this is added to the policy. ] (]) 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
There will always, of course, be unscrupulous editors like ], a sysop well aware of this fictious ''rule,'' who will take advantage of it to game the system. To while at the very same time as part and parcel of his gaming of the system to shift the burden of proof in any subsequent discussions.


: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)
As a first remedy, the rule quoted above should be changed to specify that ''']''' as defined in our rules ("Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome...") is the requirement for administrators to make a change in protected pages, not '''unanimous consent.''' It should also be specified that changes in accordance with various procedures such as ] will still be implemented as usual on protected pages (perhaps by specifying that such results are grounds for removing the protection).
: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? ==
Second, when a clear start of an edit-war can easily be determined, without any significant subsequent editing related to the edit warring, then the pre-edit war version should be the protected version.


{{moved from|Misplaced Pages talk:High-risk templates}}
I'd suggest one further simple change to help alleviate the problem of ''gaming the system'':
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 ] &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 20:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''The page shall be protected in the last version (excluding pure vandalism) by an editor other than the editor requesting page protection, and the page shall not be protected under a name which results from the last move being made by the person requesting page protection.'''


: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)
If the claim that "protection is not an endorsement of the current version" were true and believable, then this might not be necessary. Editors such as Husond would see no advantage in trying to game the system. But he knows better—knows that he can gain an advantage from getting his version protected—and now the only real question is whether or not the rest of us are gullible enough to continue to believe that he does not. ] 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
: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)
::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.}}
:::{{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)
:::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. – ] (]) 04:52, 9 December 2024 (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)
::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)
: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)

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 {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page.
Shortcuts
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:
WikiProject iconCounter-Vandalism Unit
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Misplaced Pages. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.Counter-Vandalism UnitWikipedia:Counter-Vandalism UnitTemplate:Counter-Vandalism UnitCounter-Vandalism Unit
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)
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 are 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. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: