Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 3

"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. TheHYPO 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The glib answer is to refer you to meta:The Wrong Version.

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 potentially libellous content. 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. --bainer (talk) 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 The Simpsons 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. TheHYPO 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? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 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 {{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. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 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 — 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 — if protecting the main page isn't enough to change consensus, the protection of talk archives is not going to. --- RockMFR 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Protection is very un-wikiwiki like and using it any more then unnecessary is a Bad Thing♣. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:21, 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 WP:USERPAGE, while the userpages are in your userspace, you don't own them. Others can/do make changes (especially in cases of WP:UBM). Should we continue to allow users to just arbitrarily ask for indefinite sprotection of anything they want in their userspace? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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." -- zzuuzz^(talk) 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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 George W. Bush is unprotected from time to time. -- ReyBrujo 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Though this may be true, this is not what the current or the past[1] 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"? -- zzuuzz^(talk) 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? – Steel 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the point. WP:SEMI also says about sprotection that it's not to prohibit anonymous editing in general. That's all this seems to be. WP:USERPAGE 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 Wikipedia, 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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? – Steel 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? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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? – Steel 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not hurt the encyclopedia. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So there's no real problem then is there? Glad we've settled that. – Steel 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case there needs to be a "why" reason rather than a "why not". -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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). – Steel 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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 WP:USER right now and say "this policy needs to change because it contradicts the protection policy". – Steel 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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. WP:OWN is much, much more relaxed on userpages, the WP:3RR doesn't even apply. None of the points you've made hold any water. – Steel 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). — xaosflux ^Talk 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). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  (I recall adding wording to that effect in December. Diff: [2])
  The question of why they should only be temporary remains unanswered. – Steel 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? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  I direct you to this post above to avoid repeating myself. Perhaps this is a wiki-philosophical difference between us. – Steel 17:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, a short while ago a nameless admin went through WP:PP/U 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). – Steel 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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 as many times as they like 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 deleted they can have it deleted. Allowing them to have it protected if they want it protected isn't that outrageous a suggestion. – Steel 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's still within my rights to refuse to do them then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course. – Steel 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. >Radiant< 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now that Special:Protectedpages 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 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. – Steel 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. Agathoclea 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... — xaosflux ^Talk 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but then there is the thin edge of the wedge argument. Anyway I found this very enlighening. Agathoclea 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the clause from the page. Hopefully we'll get some constructive feedback if anyone objects to me removing it. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hours and no contest? --Deskana (ya rly) 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, 23. I'm at BST which is obviously UTC + 1. Duhh. --Deskana (ya rly) 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 :) – Steel 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. >Radiant< 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. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. It is an exception in a specific case to a rule not to protect in general. >Radiant< 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like userpages are the exception to lots of other rules: WP:ATT, WP:OWN/WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Steel 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? — xaosflux ^Talk 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. – Steel 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER trumps WP:OWN in userspace: As a tradition, Wikipedia 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. – Steel 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

More freedom doesn't mean "whatever" though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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. – Steel 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 own this, hands off to new users since I don't trust you". That is contrary to the wiki way of letting anyone edit. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpages are except from the 3RR; users are allowed to say "I own 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, Wikisource, 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. – Steel 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. So userpage protection doesn't go against any "wiki way". – Steel 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 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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. – Steel 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 LSD — 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. Cacycle 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. – Steel 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 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. Cacycle 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah. Of course. – Steel 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, this case is already mentioned in the policy. Cacycle 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy redirects

I'm about to fix all the double redirects to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. If, for some reason, these pages were to be split again, anyone can check my contrib history for the redirects that were changed. --- RockMFR 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good work on the merge! >Radiant< 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the less prominent protection template

I started a discussion at Template_talk:Protected2 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 Template:Sprotect2 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 Template_talk:Protected2. Kla'quot 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

List of homeopaths 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? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please make such requests on WP:RFPP. The short answer is "probably". >Radiant< 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Template protection

Hello all. When a high-risk template is protected, should we be putting {{protected template}} at the top of the template's page, or is {{permprot}} on the talk page sufficient? I always thought it was, but I've just come across a spate of requests to add {{protected template}} to a bunch of templates while going through WP:EPP, and am discussing the best thing to do with the user who made the requests, User:Qxz. I can't find a guideline or even a rule of thumb about which is best ... personally, I think {{permprot}} on the talk page is fine, but then why would we have an {{protected template}} template? Neil (not Proto ►) 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Protected template}} adds the template into a category or two, whereas {{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 {{Protected template}} would be preferable if you're a categorisation nut. – Steel 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something that Steel359 may not be aware of, or may have overlooked: {{permprot}} goes on the talk page, whereas {{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 {{permprot}} to them all but I can't add {{protected template}} to the templates because they're protected – Qxz 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, too – {{permprot}} is used on non-template pages, whereas {{protected template}} is template-specific – Qxz 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. – Steel 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? —Moondyne 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). – Steel 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 WP:PPOL and WP:RFPP. There is even a user talk page template: {{noprotection}}. The remainder of the time there are ownership 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. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 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?--Migospia 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You can report vandalism in protected pages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --bainer (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

put {{editprotected}} on it's talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Color-code locks

Why not try color-coding locks?

semi-protection
full protection
move protection
cascade protection
— zero » 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Those images look a bit childish, sort of like Comic Sans. However, you'll probably be interested in this VPR discussion (permanent link). Gracenotes^T § 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 {{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. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Centrx (talk · contribs) would be the person to speak to about this [3]. – Steel 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 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. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the users have always been able to mostly freely edit their userspace, and even get it deleted, 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 Wikipedia 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. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 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. --Deskana (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at (reasonable) length above. See Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Indefinate Sprotection on Userpages. – Steel 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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 {{unreferenced}} tag, as a temporary measure when no sources would be easily found, and the admins are too busy to look into the question? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 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". -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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. >Radiant< 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? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• {{protected}} says so. Do you think that is clear enuogh? >Radiant< 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.) $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes,b ut unprotected pages aren't guaranteed to be neutral/valid/excellent either. >Radiant< 11:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

1. Page A is untrustworthy because it can be edited by anyone.

#Page B cannot, in its current form, be edited by anyone; therefore, it is trustworthy.

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 Immediatists without knowing it. Is there a way I could make this clearer? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WHOA HOLD UP PLEASE DON'T RESPOND UNTIL I SORT THINGS OUT $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... what? That's confusing. --Deskana (talk) 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 Template:Vprotect, 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. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates?

Are we using the {{pp-semi-vandalism}} templates now? Because the {{sprotect}} templates are still up with no message. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

{{sprotected}} displays a message. --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asking if we are now adopting {{pp-semi-vandalism}} to replace the older {{sprotect}} templates? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I misunderstood you. I have no idea :-p --Deskana (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else have any idea? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• If so I'm sure we'll redirect the old name there as well. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:KISS 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. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How Long?

On pages that are semi-protected, how long must a user have been registered for before they can edit such pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Four days. Says so at the top of the policy. >Radiant< 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.--Whytecypress 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. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 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 foundation issues: 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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 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 WP:RFPP. >Radiant< 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 Wikipedia 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.

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?

There will always, of course, be unscrupulous editors like Husond, a sysop well aware of this fictious rule, who will take advantage of it to game the system. To make an edit while at the very same time request its protection as part and parcel of his gaming of the system to shift the burden of proof in any subsequent discussions.

As a first remedy, the rule quoted above should be changed to specify that consensus 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 Wikipedia:Requested moves will still be implemented as usual on protected pages (perhaps by specifying that such results are grounds for removing the protection).

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.

I'd suggest one further simple change to help alleviate the problem of gaming the system:

• 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.

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. Gene Nygaard 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that this isn't just trolling and try and make a civilised comment.

• In most cases (note "most", not "all") page protection isn't an endorsement of the current version, and this is true with Josef Vašíček. Alison protected the version which was 'live' when she came across it while reviewing WP:RFPP requests. There is no evidence I can see that she protected that version because she approved of it in some way. So no, this wasn't an endorsement of the current version.
• I would agree that "unless all parties agree to the change" ought to be changed to something along the lines of "unless there's consensus for the change".
• The version protected does, of course, influence the resulting talk page discussion. This seems trivially true (people who support the current version have less an incentive to discuss than those who oppose it). It doesn't, however, influence discussion to the extent where trying to argue against the current version is futile, which is what you make it out to be. The page has to be protected on some version, sometimes it works in your favour, other times it doesn't.
• There is a potential problem with people reverting an article and then immediately requesting protection; it is, in effect, gaming the system. I have yet to hear a good solution to this. Your suggestion that we protect the other version to the version supported by the editor requesting protection is terrible. It will lead to no protection requests, and subsequently no admin intervention against edit wars. That is not productive. In practice, protection requests take time to be reviewed, so this isn't a too much of a problem.
• I'm not convinced by the "protect the version prior to the edit war" suggestion. This will encourage people to whinge and wikilawyer over which version is the 'before the edit war' version. A much better use of time and energy would be to discuss the relative merits of the versions and resolve the dispute.
• "I don't like Husond" and "The Wrong Version of Josef Vašíček was protected" are not a compelling arguments.

– Steel 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to largely end up repeating what Steel said above. I am the admin who protected the disputed page, as it happens and as with all RFPP enttries, I just review each request on its apparent merit. In this case, there is a very obvious revert-war going on and the correct response in this case was full protection with move protection. Needless to say I was not endorsing Husond's edit. I agree somewhat, that there's scope here for "gaming the system", as you put it, but note that 45 minutes had elapsed since Husond's revert and my protection of the page. The purpose behind protection is not endorsement of any particular version, as you know, but to stop the pointless waste of time and energy that is a revert war, rationale being that the warring editors focus on the talk page and resolve their differences. Nice in theory.

But yes. There is no "right version" to protect, and I see no way forward on that one. Best answer is compromise and dialog, and as quickly as possible. - Alison^☺ 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"but note that 45 minutes had elapsed since Husond's revert and my protection of the page." What's your point? That I should have been putting that time to use to gamble on timing another revert, trying to guess whether you would protect the page in 23 minutes or 47 minutes or 72 minutes and trying to get my version in there just before that happened? That I should have been trying to push Husond to violate the three-revert rule? Given the stance you have taken in this discussion, there is one thing I know for certain: I damn sure better not hear any complaints about "violating the spirit" of the three-revert rule or anything along those lines in the future. You have just told me that this is the only option available when a request for page protection is pending. Gene Nygaard 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene, if you'll stop for a minute and assume a little good faith on my part, please? My point is neither of the two suggestions you made. Rather, it is this; 45 minutes had elapsed between Husond reverting and applying for prot, and my applying protection. I don't believe it was a ploy on his part to expedite both of these as, quite simple, anything could have happened in the interim. Furthermore, I really like you to clarify exactly what "stance [I] have taken in this discussion". Please be careful about putting words into my mouth when you suggest I "have just told you". Try to remain civil, please. I more than aware about some of the discussions going on elsewhere right now regarding your behaviour and, as this is our first encounter, it's a pity it had to be so antagonistic. - Alison^☺ 06:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, no manners. I've reported your constant incivility to WP:ANI (here).--Húsönd 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly are you complaining about here? Gene Nygaard 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's holding a grudge. Page protection is not an endorsement of the current version, you're welcome to think otherwise but you're essentially saying that a tree isn't a tree, but is instead the Bolivian navy on maneuvers in the South Pacific. Call it what you want, it doesn't change the fact that its true. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, in some sense it probably is true. But it is only trivially true as a nonsense blandishment, something really irrelevant to the issue at hand. Its truth depends on the meaning assigned to the word "endorsement".

But endorsements or not have little meaning, when what the "protected version" is such an overwhelming advantage that even if it were an endorsement, it would have no effect on the outcome. What the "protected version" gives you is the default version; the one that cannot be changed except by unanimous consent. It doesn't matter one whit whether or not the protecting sysop is endorsing it, given that state of affairs. That statement is a trivial observation offered as pabulum to placate the masses, to pull the wool over our eyes by bringing up something that really doesn't have any effect whatsoever.

If it really were relevant and effective, in a broader meaningful sense, then nobody would would be out there trying to game the system, because no advantage would be gained by trying to do so. But that quite obviously is not true, and people are gaming the system to gain the totally non-random advantage of the protected versions, by getting sympathetic sysops, or just unwitting ones, to act at the times most to their advantage to gain a leg up on the dispute. Gene Nygaard 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So which am I then, Gene; sympathetic or unwitting? I'm not impressed with either of those appellations - Alison^☺ 07:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• If we state that protection is not an endorsement, that gives both sides the incentive to discuss on the talk page knowing that a compromise has to be reached, and knowing that the page is not protected forever. The "protection" template tells people that there's a problem with the page. If we were to change this and say that protection is an endorsement, that would give one group the incentive to not do anything since they've already won, and it would encourage admins to take sides and pick the version they like best to protect in. That is undesirable, and that is why even though protection means a de facto top version, it is not de iure considered better. At any rate these are short-term concerns only, and we're not working on a deadline here. >Radiant< 08:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene, on the face of it the concern you raise does seem to be valid, but it seems to me to be based on a misunderstanding (which may well be caused by deficiencies in the wording). The purpose of protection in the case of edit warring is to compel the parties in a content dispute to engage in discussion, and, importantly, to seek the views of other users. The objective is to achieve a consensus (not unanimity) as to which of the competing versions is preferable, at which point protection may be removed.

The particular sentence you have identified is specifically addressed to admins, who of course have the technical ability to edit protected articles. It cautions them not to edit the article while it is protected unless there is complete agreement among the parties (who at that time should be busy discussing on the talk page) or unless the content is not related to the dispute. It has nothing to do with the objective of the people discussing the content dispute, which is to achieve a regular, garden variety consensus as to which version should be put in place once the article is unprotected.

Of course, this is the approach for protection in response to edit warring. If the revision in place at the time of protection contains, for example, copyvio content, then naturally that can be removed.

Does this explanation make sense? If need be, then we can discuss changes to the wording which may be necessary to make it clear that the sentence you identify is a cautionary note addressed at admins, and is irrelevant for the purposes of the editors discussing the content issue. --bainer (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)