Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

When a page becomes locked, it means the content no longer is amended. Rememeber the theory behind how a wiki works? It starts with a low level of reliability which, in theory, is continually improved and amended by the edits of a multitude of users. When you lock a page, you take the page from being a wiki page, to being an ordinary internet content page -- but one generated originally by unknown persons of unsubstantiated quality .. ie "a bunch of morons", ie the page is no longer deemed of any reliable quality since "it was generated by random morons, and I can't fix it any more."

Because these pages are therefore quantifiably lower in quality (see above argument) they should have an obvious warning which spells out this inadequacy, not simply a quiet little lock symbol in the corner. Naiive users of the wikipedia need to have things spelt out for them, and this is currently the most important of those things (apart from "anyone can edit" which you still don't spell out well enough for a naiive user to understand. Aren't you lucky you have newspapers to do that for you, are you going to wait until the newspapers have to explain what the problem is with wikipedia locking pages too or are you going to do something? Thanks you in advance for your understanding in this matter, amen.) -- Planetfck (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The small lock was decided upon because it's less intrusive to viewing the page. We will continue to use protection to fight vandalism. We like to keep a lot of the bureaucratic stuff behind the scenes and just let readers read. Usually they end up somewhere (like here for example) to complain about facts or something when the page is protected too. -

R!

) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Intrusiveness to the reading experience would seem to be the point of the protection banner, as Planetfck was pointing out; much as all readers can (usually) participate in the creation of Wikipedia, all readers should as readily as possible be able to play a part in the consumption of its information without anyone keeping 'bureaucratic stuff' hidden away. The large protection banner is an important signifier of a page's current state of trustworthiness, and anything that causes that signifier to be lost (as it currently is on the waterboarding page next to the fundraising banner) should be of concern. Inkslinger (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule or policy that mandates either be put on a protected page (it does say I think, but it's really not "mandatory", it's common though). It is the decision of the protecting admin to choose which to put up as noted by Until(1 == 2) below. Most complaints have actually been that the banner is too intrusive, and in many cases an editor will replace the banner with the lock in the corner, which they are allowed to do. -

R!

) 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The small lock is optional, the admin adding it usually decides if it is a banner or a lock.

1 != 2

21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, really, this locking business has to go. It's not what a wiki is or does.

Can't you instead of having admins make a whole page immutable, have an immutable banner that the admin can place at the top of the page, saying 'well this page gets a lot of spam/vandalism/whathaveyou (tick the box) and so you should look in the page history if the page content looks awry' or something like that? You could perhaps take note of the last time the page looked 'ok' to the admin, and mention that edit point (with a link).

Or better, have more obvious info on how/what a wiki is, and how to use the history feature, perhaps have the default appearance of the page include large clear info like that, and a 'reduce this info stuff' link for the users who already know it, so that they get more screen realestate for content.

I think the argument that 'the content is more important than the usage info without the content most people wouldn't be there' argument is disingenuous and harmful. Any "content" on the site that is not clearly understood as "wikicontent" open to dispute, under development, and most importantly of all, inviting YOUR edits, is content that I want to throw away, right now, forever, gone, no more, adios, and goodbye.

If you continue to insist of pretending that this is not a wiki, and that the content which after all, you have not even written yourself, is of the highest quality irredeemable stand-up-in-court-and-say-so your honour, with never-a-by-your-leave oh yessir me hearty jim lad oh yes it does sir, well, I call you madmen.

This is a wiki. EVERY SINGLE READER must be taught what a wiki is before they can use the content. IF YOU DO NOT DO THIS PRO-ACTIVELY THEN SURELY THE ENTIRE WIKI IS WORSE THAN USELESS AND IN FACT HARMFUL. Once you do actually do this, then the locking mechanism will be understood by all users to be a cancer. And of course, perhaps this is what you like about it -- but if it is, it is you who is deranged, and we will leave you to your derangement al fresco non-comprende, oh yes, you win sir, and we will never be able to build another, oh no we won;t there shall be no more wikis, honest... -- Planetfck (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We would like users to understand how to use a wiki before they use it, but it is not mandatory. It would be impossible to mandate that every new user goes through 100+ guidelines/policies/essays/boards before they are allowed to edit. As I said above, we will continue to use protections as a way to fight vandalism, that's not going to change. -

R!

) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The most important thing of a wiki is not the history that can be checked, but the fact that it is something that anyone can edit. We should try to keep things as accessable as possible. At any rate, vandalism seems only a minor problem in Wikipedia compared to POV pushing and dispute resolution. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can only admins do the protection? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Richard001 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed some text looking like this in the source code of the Wikipedia:Protection policy article: {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} I don't have much experience with HTML, but I'm assuming that this message tells the server that the article is semi-protected, and therefore prevents users who are not logged in from editing the text of the article. While I understand why only admins are allowed to protect articles (so that random noobs can't lock a page into a vandalized state, for instance,) I think I may have found a loophole; is it possible for anybody, even a non-admin or non-user, to semi-protect a page by simply adding {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} to the top of the article? Conversely, is it possible to remove semi-protection from a page by removing this text? I just felt like I had to say this, in order to plug up a potential security hole. --Luigifan 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No. That's not what protects the page. That just displays a notice that the page is protected. The protection tab is at the top, next to history, but only admins can see it, and even if you could see it, were you to click it it wouldn't work: [1] --Deskana (talky) 19:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Phew! For a moment, I thought I might have uncovered a hole for noobs to exploit! Thanks for avelliating my concerns. (Wait, is that a real word?) Ah, I'll just thank you for putting me at ease and leave it at that. :p --Luigifan 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• You mean "alleviate" :) >Radiant< 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Straight into the subject. :) I have a question, possibly for the developers: could the textarea with contents of a protected page not be read only? The software currently denies users anything that simply resembles editing. Of course, this accords with the general attitude of protection. However, I often select text strafing with arrow keys and function keys, and this feature makes it impossible. Also, say one wants to modify and copy some markup found on a protected page. He cannot do it inside the source textarea, but he has to copy it and edit manually somewhere else.

Making the textarea editable would not harm the project, since there would still be no submit button, and server-side system would catch an unauthorized edit attempt nonetheless. Please consider it. Thanks! 83.31.240.223 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

they are dogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.234.247 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this available on the latest version of Wikimedia software or is this exclusive only to WM wikis? VoL†ro/\/Force 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be available on the newest versions (I believe MW 1.10 was where it came in). Anything after

R!

) 18:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to remove vandalism warnings, copyright image notices, etc, from my user talk page? User:Yamakiri user has threatened to permanently protect my user talk page so that i cant edit it myself. Can i remove copyright image notices at least? i hope you see this soon and you could message me to help me out. thx Modelun88 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting of tired of going behind him... Anyways, he's removed block notices, and I'm not an admin so I just requested that his page be protected and that he get a block. P.S. he's copied and pasted this on quite a few pages now.Yamakiri 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've went behind him so many times! I'm sure if he's allowed, well now to prove it he's posted this so many times it's disruptive --Yamakiri 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 1600 indefinitely semi-protected articles in the main namespace alone. Is this right? 200.85.224.36 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting the figure from exactly? -

R!

) 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In pseudocode: [2] | grep -vc expires = 1608. The reality seems to be detached from this policy. 200.85.224.36 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because they don't have an expiry set doesn't mean they won't (manually). On the other hand, (other admins:read this) we should be using expiry dates whenever possible. -

R!

) 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one indicator of de facto indefinite semi/protection could be to identify those articles currently without expiration dates that have remained in a semi/protected status more often than they are unprotected over a defined period, say, the last six months. --HailFire 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've brought this up before, but I'd like to throw a new idea out there. How about we get rid of full protection and replace it with a stricter version of semi-protection, where the editor needs to have been around a while and know what they're doing. This would be something similar to the 'trusted editor' or 'reviewer' status suggested at

look at the former members and you will find this is wrong if you read how they came together davis is apparently still in the baqnd when he left daniel≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.239.243 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Browsing wikipedia i fell up on an article titled "Republic of Macedonia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia). As you know, this country for the moment is recognised by E.U, U.N. and all other international organisations under the name F.Y.R.O.M. . My question is simple: Why does wikipedia recognise this country under the name Republic of Macedonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clandestino (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My question is what does this have to do with protection policy? Please ask somewhere relevant, like the page's talk page, or at worst a policy page more closely connected like

WP:NAME. Richard001

06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do want an explanation, then it's because the principle rule in naming articles is "use common name", which happens to be Republic of Macedonia in this case. The naming dispute is covered in

R!

) 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can some Admin change this? thank-you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circaocean (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For the nth time, this isn't the place for these requests. If you'd like someone to add something, make a request on the

R!

) 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - This discussion followed

Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate? discussion. -- Jreferee t/c

16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets talk about userspaced salt pages... I use mine so that I can remember to clear them periodically, and perhaps there are other reasons for them. Lets get a consensus so I don't see at MFD what I saw again. Navou ^banter 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are fine as long as they are used in line with the existing protection policy. On one big master list it can be hard to keep track of your saltings, a personal page allows you to see them clearly so that you can remove old entries instead of them being lost in the heap. I think the primary issue in the MfD was that some of the pages mentioned were salting pages preemptively. That is of course another issue altogether. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the protections and the lists should be open to community review, so that anyone can request removal and identify inappropriateness. How about transcluding the 'private' lists onto a central list of private salt lists? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, it could work. Navou ^banter 19:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, though they already have a central page linking to them. I think links make more sense than transclusion. See

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. Userspaced salt pages? Are you talking about pages in the userspace that have been salted? Or a userfied copy of a list of salted pages?

(ec) see User:Navou/Protected titles for an example... which is unprotected for the moment, but would be cascade protected. Navou ^banter 19:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in reference to a personal page in your userpage that you have put cascading protection on. You can transclude non-existing pages onto it and that stops the page from being created. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It means a list of redlinks in an admin's userspace that they have cascade-protected to stop those redlinks turning blue. Personally, I see no reason why these would ever need to be in userspace rather than at

ム

19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note if you do not have admin access, and the page does not exist(not just blank), then it does not tell you what page is causing the protection unless you got to "What links here". This is because the information about what is causing the protection is shown in the edit/view source page which cannot be reached on a protected non-existing page, a bug I think. I think the interface text for a salted page should have a link to "What links here" to fix this, but I don't know where that message is kept. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just tested this logged out and the view source message for salted pages does tell you where the cascading protection is coming from. –

Steel

20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problem that caused that a couple days ago. Admins see a different MediaWiki message than everyone else when they try to edit a cascade protected page. The one for non-admins displayed differently if the page existed or not. If it did not exist, the message did not include the variable that displayed the cascade protected page. It does now. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing why these pages need to be in user space. If someone wants to keep a list of which pages they've salted, that's fine. But keep the actual salting list in one place. –RHolton≡– 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is of course... this

Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin. Navou ^banter

20:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused...are you saying that my question isn't appropriate here? If not, I've missed the point of your comment. If you are saying that my question is inappropriate, I'm still confused, since it seems to me that this is a conversation about these types of pages, and I'm just asking for the reason to have them. –RHolton≡– 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand. Your comments are germane and welcome. I'm just stating there is a centralized list, kindof. I think the number of actual cascading entries are technically limited on a page. Navou ^banter 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. –RHolton≡– 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All the recent discussions on private salt lists have been a lot of fuss over nothing and have generally involved (a) people thinking up hypothetical problems rather than raising actual problems, and (b) stretching the protection policy to apply to things it was never intended to apply to. I think

All normal admin action should be public. Keeping a private list of this sort not visible to all users, or not easily finadable, is an my opinion inconsistent with this. DGG (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Does

Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin make it unprivate? Also, are these userpages really private? Navou ^banter

21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem, unless the admin protects pages that they shouldn't protect. But that can be dealt with if and when it arises. I'm sure there could occasionally be a good reason for having a userspaced list. I'm also sure that there are enough people "snooping" at the contribs of the admins who are considered "abusive", so it's not as if it's going to be a big secret! ElinorD (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following wording be edited into the policy page under the cascadeding protection heading...

"Administrators may choose to use a cascade protected userpage to protect a redlink following the policy on full protection. It is recommended, that these lists be noted on

Regards, Navou ^banter 22:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording, it urges a recommended practice to deal with these concerns, yet makes allowances for situations where privacy is an issue. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• One of the concerns I have with private saltlists is a possible conflict with
  WP:PROTECT#Full protection states that page creation is salted following a community decision ("Pages deleted by consensus that are repeatedly recreated") - private salting seems to go against this. Can someone give examples of cases in which private saltlists are required, as opposed to using WP:PT? Videmus Omnia ^Talk
  22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Rather can you change the wording on /Specific admin? Navou ^banter 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - what do you mean? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You could go change the wording so that it does not smell of ownership to you. Perhaps suggest a post at RFPP, or AN/I. I'll be honest with you, I have no qualms editing another administrators salt list. And other folks should not have any problem editing mine. Not seeing the ownership here, you mihgt change the wording if your so inclined. Navou ^banter 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you mean. But I'm afraid most admins don't share your attitude about editing other editor's saltlists, given sensitivity about wheel-warring. Before changing any wording, does anyone have examples of when private saltlists are required as opposed to using the "public" saltlist? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Omnia, the community makes the decision to delete. Once recreated repeatedly it is often the admin who decides it should be salted. The advice on the page should direct people to

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, it already has the DRV option in it. This is not an ownership issue in itself, if an admin uses this ability to act with ownership that is a whole different issue. Your concerns about admins fearing "wheel wars" does not make sense as it would be just as much undoing another admins actions if it was on another page. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but, as I asked, why a private saltpage instead of WP:PT? And maybe I'm making an incorrect assumption here, but would one admin really make changes in another admin's userspace without clearing it with them first? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It has already been addressed why, it helps admins keep track of what they have salted and lets them be more responsible with it. It gets lost in the heap on a public page and results in simply being forgotten. Admins don't own their userspace. Another admin should get the consent of an admin, or get a wide consensus, or have a very good reason to undo another admins actions. The location of the page is not part of the consideration.

On another note, I am currently working on a program to track down all cascade protected pages and generate a complete list of what is effected by what. This may help. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be helpful in bringing transparency to the process. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To learn when and under what impetus

I've added my proposed wording into the policy, I think this was the correct thing to do given this discussion and current practice. Navou ^banter 01:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to reflect current practice. Good addition. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - what is the "privacy or decency" clause intended to cover? Actually, I get the decency part, but if an article title is salted due to privacy concerns (for example, if an outing vandal is creating the article "Videmus Omnia's address is 123 Main Street"), that information shouldn't be anywhere in the wiki, not even in a private saltlist. If the vandal tries to recreate the page, then follows the link in the warning template back to the saltlist page, he's going to see all the private information that's in there. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is for when someone keeps making a page called "<someone's real name> is a <uncreative insult>" over and over and it needs to be salted. To do that we need to post that name somewhere, for privacy reasons it would be out of the way. Yes it can be found, but short of a new mechanism for "secret protection" there is not much to be done about it, we just for our best. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a userspace page is no more private than a Wikipedia space page - everything's available for everyone to look at. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you don't link it to a central page it is more difficult to find. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't watchlisting the article title, and blocking socks as they appear, be better in a situation like that? I agree it's more cumbersome, but that way you're not putting the person's real name on the wiki. This is especially bad if you accumulate personal info in the history of your saltlist and vandals find it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on the situation, which is why we have broad policies that allow for different eventualities. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand - I'm not arguing with you, I just wanted to emphasize to anyone watching this thread that private saltlists are a really bad method of protecting confidential information, because the people most likely to see the saltlist are the very vandals you are fighting - they are, after all, presented with a direct link to the saltlist when they try to create the salted page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted information is only viewable by admins, and personal info is usually oversighted. I don't see how the PI could be garnered from looking at the saltlist in the event of oversighted information. Navou ^banter 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about information that's oversighted out, but any information currently in the list, or in the non-oversighted history. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the personal information is in the salted page title itself, then the personal information will appear in the list of salted pages, regardless of whether that list is on a project page or a personal page. Security through obscurity is not a very good tactic, and in this case, once a vandal attempts to create a salted page, the obscurity is gone, since the salting page is displayed. We need another way of handling page titles that contain personal information. –RHolton≡– 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the point I was trying to make - I was speaking of situations where the personal information is in the page title. Right now, the only safe method I can think of would be watchlisting the page. Maybe it's time for the devs to come up with something for situations like this. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They have.

WP:RFO. Navou ^banter

22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you still don't understand what I'm talking about - I'm talking about salting article titles when the private information is in the article title itself, for instance, salting the article title "Navou's real name is John Smith". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That can be dealt with, too, although there's not currently a formal process I'm familiar with. You're right about it being a concern, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have one at

WP:DENY issue. Cascading or listing these in some central location doesn't sound like a terrible idea. If each admin keeps only one such page, it'd be pretty easy to see a complete list of pages they've protected in that manner... although keeping multiple such pages might be a concern, from that angle. I don't feel too strongly about this, but I haven't personally seen any problems, either. If it gets abused, it's may be worth revisiting. Smart thing to clarify, either way. – Luna Santin (talk

) 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also have a salt page at

R!

) 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• We have a process for salting pages and that needs to be used. The procedures for
  What may I have on my user page? (which states "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively."). -- Jreferee t/c
  16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, I think I'll

  R!

  ) 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  ignoring, I suppose.) Incidentally, in reading of Jreferee's post, I don't see him "talking down" or "preaching" to anyone. This is just a discussion, there's no reason to be defensive, or to take the comments personally. - jc37

  04:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  There's nothing in PP that says I can't have a private salt page. The "preaching" was the reference to the userpage guideline, which I'm sure we all know by heart by now (it's common sense!). Citing policy is great, but we've all read them and don't need to/like to be told on what they mean over and over again. And actually, I am using this private salt subpage to be more efficient, so I guess there's no conflict then, except some perceived conflict. -

  R!

  ) 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  You don't like to have someone point you to a policy or guideline relevant to a discussion you're in? (Boggle.) Well, part of what we do as editors is

  trolling, aside, of course}. I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37

  08:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

idk about using this to help reasearch it can be changed what is said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.208 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may find some information about this at Wikipedia:General disclaimer. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

if you could add this under beliefs----the patriarchal beliefs the puritans held in the community made puritans lifestyles very strict and difficult because the church would give horrid punishment no matter what the wrong doing was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1234567 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to add the text you want in the talk page of the article, and add {{

edit protected}} to get an admin to add it if the article is fully protected. If it is just semiprotected, wait a few days until you are able to edit it. -- ReyBrujo

01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference: www.rianz.org.nz/chart.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.121.175 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though the article is protected, the "talk page" or "discussion" is not. Please move your post there. Contact me should you need further assistance. Thank you, and have a great day. Puchiko 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Under semi-protection there is no mention as to what frequency is considered high for anon IPs vandalising pages. Some words here may be helpful. I generally semiprotect if an article (especially a large one where info can get easily lost or misappropriated) if it is copping 1 or more vandal edits a day from more than 1 IP. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the test should take into account levels of activity on each specific article and whether the unhelpful edits might be best managed through less intrusive methods. For example, articles currently listed in the Wikicharts top 1000 most viewed or the Wikirage 100 most frequently edited may attract more unhelpful edits, but because they also benefit from wider and more active participation of helpful editors they should need semi-protection only rarely. In those cases, the vandalism should be persistent, meaning at least five or more vandal edits from five different IPs within the last four hours (suggesting active, coordinated vandalism). There should also be some evidence of unsuccessful user- and admin-level participation in trying first-resort revert, warn, then block remedies to calm the most recent outbreak. Because the distinction of what is "vandalism" and what is merely considered to be unhelpful is a judgment call, we should err on the side of remaining true to Wikipedia's hopes as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --HailFire 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this one before (I forget which archive). The upshot of the discussion was that the policy doesn't (and shouldn't) explicitely quantify what level of vandalism is required for semi-protection because: (a) there are 861 admins, each with differing views (wildly differing views, in some cases) on what the threshold level of vandalism should be. Trying to quantify a level on which they'll all agree would be a near-impossible task and an create unneccesary amount of argument for what isn't a particularly pressing problem. That leads onto (b), this isn't a particularly pressing problem. Many, many pages are protected each day,^[3] yet requests that the policy be made more explicit appear once in a blue moon. This suggests to me that the whole protection process (inasmuch as there is a process) is working fine as it is. Disagreements on specific cases can be and are solved by sensibly talking to the admin in question. Let's not try to fix what isn't broken. (c)

Steel

14:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a pointer to one previous discussion concerning a closely related concern, semi-protection durations. --HailFire 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, there's the

rough guide at the bottom of the content page where general considerations are discussed. Feel free discuss changes or add additional criteria you feel have been overlooked. Richard001

22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links folks - I guess my issue is when pages start to get really hefty with lots of prose and some IPs start making silly edits that get lost in the mass of prose and hard to find. I do like the freedom too and mainly posted this in case I missed some page somewhere which had specified.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Royalguard11, RE: Semi-protection, If the three rules (“Semi-protection should not be used:”) are to apply to all spaces, not just mainspace, then how do you reconcile with the preceding points “Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:” The long-term semi-protection of user pages and policy pages (including this one) is in contradiction with the version you have reverted to. --SmokeyJoe 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

They are exceptions to the rules. Just those two (and even the indefinite userpage one is disputed, see talk archives). Policy pages are just an exception. They need to stay accurate because they're policy. Everything else falls under those three rules (no preemptive for any space, no general prohibiting annon editing, and the other one is common sense, as an admin you protect from everyone or you block both, you never play sides in a dispute). -

R!

) 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot config pages are often protected to avoid abuse too. Everything has exceptions. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is allowed, but here's what I was thinking: My sandbox is of more use to me as a sort of 'scratchpad' area, so I'm thinking I'd like to be able to protect it so I can leave stuff there that's for my reference/WIP. Is this allowed? Or am I missing the point? Thanks, either way.    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, this question might better be asked over at the Village Pump. Will post it there as well. Thank you.    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I cannot edit semi-protected articles, how may I? Rick-Levitt^Contribs 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your account is not four days old yet. You will be able to edit semi-protected articles in about 30 hours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh ok thank you zzuuzz. Rick-Levitt^Contribs 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please ad hu:iPhone . Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.53.93 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Next time you can just put {{

R!

) 16:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

At half time South Africa have 9 points and England have 3 points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.136.38 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The following part of the entry for football needs to be changed:

Association football worldwide

"British football has maintained a growing foothold in the enthusism of people around the world. Major events, like the annual cup final match, attract large international audiences. Bars in many nations are crowded as people, who will never visit Great Britain, follow every move. By contrast, American football is followed by few non-American nations. The recent publicity for David Beckham shows that public interest is set to rise in the USA, where the game is known as 'soccer'."

My reasoning below:

The example of it's worldwide appeal, about bars being crowded with people who will never travel to Britain, is immature and impertinent. This image conjures up too many things having nothing to do with football itself: drinking, partying, gambling, even third world economics (they are too poor too ever travel, but they need some sport to bet on). Furthermore, contrasting Association football to American football is incendiary and reflects a British bias. The overall tone of this section is to say that Association football is better than American football because of it's worldwide appeal. The worldwide importance of Association football should make no mention of American football. Think about it: An American bias would mention something in this section like, "Association football is popular in many places in the world, but almost entirely ignored in the world's largest developed nation, the U.S.A." Someone with a good sense of Association football in all of Europe, Africa, South America and Asia, and the MLS in the US should rewrite and ignore comparisons to the American NFL which really don't do the significance of worldwide football (soccer) any justice.

Other errors: Enthusiam isn't spelled correctly.

              Exactly what are "non-American" nations?  Does this account for Central and South America, or nations that simply aren't the U.S.?  Encyclopedia entries should be clearer than this.

My User page has been semi-protected (as I requested). When I try to edit the page, it says:

If you have a user account, sign in first. If you do not yet have an account, you may create one; after a while, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages.

I only have this account for a day, so when will I be able to edit it? Muenda 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Found it in the article... didn't read it well enough. Muenda 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I get my user page, semi-protected? Tigersfan1992 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been done. In future, requests are made at

WP:RFPP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

can you guys stop people from editing the ESPN.com's Fanboard page, people keep being vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzey jon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The following text was posted on RFPP (not the talk page, but the page itself), but as it wasn't appropriate for it to be there, I have moved to here, and will inform the user who posted it. Acalamari 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Upon review, After reading Eminem's page, the Semi-Protection Policy needs an upgrade. Only users with accounts more than two standard weeks old, vice four days, may edit pages that are Semi-Protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that 2 weeks might be a bit excessive (10 days more than currently needed). Although we haven't considered changing the number of days in a while (and I don't think we need too much dev intervention to do it either). What does everyone else think? -

R!

) 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong on the information of the Playstation 3. However, I would like to add that the the following info can be added to the PS3.

The PS3 has a removable hard drive on all versions and does not void the warranty if taken out. As long as the hard drive you get for your PS3 (yes, you can replace the HDD) is a 2'5 SATA, it will be able to be put into the hard drive slot. The HDD supplied with the PS3 when first bought is a 5400 RPM. If you buy a 7400 RPM HDD, it will be faster, but it could overheat the PS3 faster. None has been known to actually go on fire with this kind of HDD.

We don't resolve disputes here. Please visit the talk page of the article to ask for something to be changed. -

R!

) 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question from a new guy. I became a user recently, I just want to know if I will ever be able edit locked articles. (Username): FiercedietylinkX —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiercedeitylinkX (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

After you become autoconfirmed (4 days after registration) you'll be able to edit semiprotected pages (the majority of Wikipedia pages). You won't be able to edit fully protected pages because they are (temporarily) restricted to admins only. -

R!

) 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is protecting articles for weeks (2,3,...) a right remedy against

So, it seems that: Yes, as the last resort, when other remedies were exhausted or could not have been applied. That policy is reasonable in theory, but how it has been followed? I can give you two examples of articles being often (over)protected: Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. Not a single vandal has been blocked, and I found just one warned and not even blocked (User:24.8.104.191)! Both the articles were overprotected and the protection was subsequently lowered after a tedious process that nobody would pursue; I did it, but only twice, just to exemplify the abuse of protection policy, as a rule rather than exception (see Talk:Diego Rivera#Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive??? and Talk:Frida Kahlo#"Protecting" the article for 2 weeks - too much!!!) caused - I think - by "taking shortcuts" by sysops not careful enough. My point is that the protection policy was (and still is) systematically abused, and - so - I have proposed improvement to the vandalism definition (Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort") to clarify subject of blocking to make it reality rather than theory. -70.18.5.219 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against a certain admin, talk to them first. The "official policy" is to block first, but like everything else on wikipedia it depends on the admin, time of day, their mood, ect. If you wish to ask people to block more, than you should make a point at

R!

) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not not have a complaint against a certain administrator, but against a wide spread abuse of the protection policy. Despite that - according to the protection policy -

User:Anthony.bradburys will better understand that abusing policies by administrators is also vandalism. -70.18.5.219 (talk

) 08:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking does take precedence when there are a few vandals. If there is 1 IP, it's blocked. If there are 10 IPs, then protection is favourable because it causes less collateral damage. If a page is under attack by a new sock puppet everyday, then protection is favourable.

If you would bother to look at, say,

R!

) 19:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself. Since "Content and quality [of Wikipedia, called integrity in the vandalism definition] comes first", and the policies do nothing else than protect integrity, then following the policies serves just protecting the "content and quality", and - so - it is the first priority, and not the second, as you said. In other words, protecting "content and quality" is nothing else than following the polices serving that protection.

People choose protecting articles over blocking vandals for several reasons. First - often, it is difficult to prove vandalism due to a vague vandalism definition I proposed - so - to improve in

WP:OWN

being vandalism itself), and they simply manipulate sysops into protection that should be being discouraged through the improved vandalism definition.

E.g.

WP:PROT#Semi-protection that "Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Auschwitz (& in general) lengthily protection violates policy). Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk

) 09:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Against my better judgement I am responding to this.

1. It is not the case that protecting content and quality is nothing over and above following policy. Arriving at this conclusion from "policies do nothing else than protect integrity" involves some quite fallacious reasoning, since it assumes that the only way to protect integrity is by following policy.
2. Claiming that people choose to protect an article rather than block users because of laziness or a desire to
   WP:OWN
   the article is false and we can do without the assumptions of bad faith. Articles are protected when articles are being hit by new IPs each hour/day and thus blocking would have no effect in stopping vandalism to the article. If one IP (or two, or three; any small number works) is hitting the page regularly and all the vandalism to the page is from that IP, then blocking would be the most productive solution, yes.
3. Frida Kahlo probably shouldn't have been protected on the 3rd of October based on just two IP vandals. A case could be made for protection now (23rd Nov) given the rate of vandalism and uniqueness of each IP vandalising.
4. The current protection of Auschwitz concentration camp is not against policy. Checking back through the history and logs, there has been vandalism and unprotection has been tried before, only for the vandalism to return. The protection here is quite evidently not being used as a pre-emptive measure.
5. You have started several discussions about "abuse" of the protection policy across various pages but have received vanishingly little agreement or support. Perhaps it's time to
   Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
   ?

–

Steel

17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to add that these policies have been written by us users. We control the policies, they do not control us. We can choose to

R!

) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps use different icons on pages with different levels of protection. I just recall seeing the same image of a lock. Be sure that totally colorblind users can differentiate them and they have ALT=... HTML tags. Jidanni (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We have different colors in place already. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does wiki own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.26.115 (talk • contribs)

Own what? pwn? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, so I thought I would add here what I think should be in the place of the current information about Dogs in Religion, specifically the Islam section.

Most Islamic schools of thought consider dogs to be unclean¹ and the majority of Muslims do not keep pet dogs. There are a number of traditions concerning Muhammad's attitude towards dogs. He allowed them as helpers in hunting, for herding, and for protection², but said that they voided a portion of a Muslim's good deeds if they lived within the house.³ He advocated kindness to dogs and other animals as it is said that he told his companions about a man who had had his sins forgiven and went to paradise for filling his shoe from a well for a thirsty dog.⁴

Refs: ¹ The position of the Maliki school is that “spittle/saliva of all living animals is pure (even if it is from a dog or a pig). The entire living animal itself is also pure (even if it is a pig or a dog).” – From Guiding Helper, p. 40, http://www.guidinghelper.com/downloadBooks.cgi ² It is related by Abu Huraira (Allah be well pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever acquires a dog, with the exception of a dog for hunting, or guarding sheep, or protecting the harvest, then a large portion of his reward will be diminished every day.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim] ³ Abu Talha relates (Allah be well pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The angels do not enter a house that has a dog or a picture.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim] ⁴“While a man was travelling, he felt very thirsty. He found a well and went down to have a drink. When he came out he found a thirsty dog. He said to himself, "This dog is as thirsty as I was." He then went back inside the well and used his shoe to bring out some water for the dog. Allah was pleased with him and forgave his sins because of he had done." [Recorded by Al-Bukhari]

Please use the talk page of the article in question to raise issues. Any issues raised here will most likely not be investigated. -

R!

) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Clicking "View source" from Main Page displays (to this non-admin user) the legend, "This page is currently protected, and can only be edited by administrators".
Speaking as a member of the

"... can only be edited by administrators"

is that the only thing that administrators can do with this page is edit it. I. e., they can't read it, laugh at it, or comment on it; they can only edit it and nothing else.
Putting "only" next to the clause it is intended to modify, "by administrators", as suggested:

"can be edited only by administrators."

means that this page can be edited, but only by administrators, and not by IPs, registered non-admin users, or anyone else. Of course, that is what is intended. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• p. s. Of course, you could also put "... can be edited by administrators only.". That may look stilted as a full sentence, but it's seen frequently on signs, e. g. "Authorized personnel only". Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people get the point already, but I guess we should at least try to use good grammar. I've updated the page with your suggestion, and also updated the semiprotection message to match the grammar. If you have any other suggestions, the message is actually on

R!

) 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. I agree that the message was clear enough as it was. Sometimes, though, it does make a difference in meaning, so we might as well get in the habit of placing it correctly -- and of setting a good example, especially for the many non-Native English-speakers here. Thanks also for the tips for changing protected pages. So many templates and procedures to learn here! Oh, and as far as your own grammar, didn't notice -- but your friendly League and Help-desk are ready to assist when needed. Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So many templates and procedures to learn here! Tell me about it. I had to log-out and view the html-source to find what the MediaWiki page was, which then led me to the template. -

R!

) 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps at all, but I just did some research on semi-protected articles and thought I'd post the results. There are currently about 1200 pages in Category:Semi-protected. Of those, 26 were protected in 2006. Another 180 were protected in the first half of this year.

The full list I had SatyrBot pull together can be reviewed at User:SatyrBot/Semiprotection.

My guess is, from reading this policy, that we have a group of pages (mostly templates, legal info, etc) that are *fully* protected, and a group of pages (articles, mostly) that are *semi* protected. The act of semi-protecting a page sometimes involves a time-limit, but sometimes doesn't - the policy mentions indefinite and temporary, neither of which are very specific :) One would expect George W. Bush to be semi-protected for at least the next year and a bit. But Cool probably doesn't need a time-limit. So unless a) the protector remembers to remove the protection or b) someone requests unprotection, a semi-protected page *could* stay that way indefinitely, and there's no way to indicate that the protection is supposed to be indefinite, or why it's that way, or if there's a time limit involved, or anything - simply that the page is semi-protected.

Again, I don't know if this helps anyone in any way. And I don't know if the information is useful at all, but I found it interesting :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We're already aware of this. There's an extensive backlog of semiprotected pages listed at Special:Protectedpages. I'm going to try to tackle some during the Christmas holidays after my finals and such.

I think the problem is there's not enough admins doing protection. Since I became a sysop almost a year ago, there has been less than 10 admins dedicated to protection (RPP) and unprotection, which went down after expired protection came in (since people stopped going on unprotection runs). I unprotected over 50 pages a month ago I think. The problem is that most newbie admins go right into blocks/deletions (deletions have always been backlogged too). With RFA being what it is (<insert vile description here>), we're always going to be behind. -

R!

) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If a person is recently deceased, there can be a lot of hysteria over a death as everyone piles on with their source. This is a bad thing, because quite a few recently deceased people have died in murky situtations, which makes the section murky and has resulted in protection before, I think most notably on

It seems like

instruction creep. When someone dies their article often sees the most improvement it has ever seen, as more sources, more eyes, and carpe diem become apparent. You mention edits to some articles after the subject's death has resulted in full protection before, this suggests the policy seems to work fine without this proposed addition, which is probably likely to result in a lot of unnecessary full protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with zzuuzz. No need to make it full policy when it's already working. -

R!

) 18:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be reverting to the name which existed before disagreement broke out (which in the case I allude to is not my favoured name) rather than merely letting the current name stand? Also, protecting a page from moves doesn't necessarily help debate if it allows the requester to go into silent mode. Should it not be incumbent on the admin who protects the page to then go and read existing debate and stimulate more, and, if necessary, make a decision? --kingboyk (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea of immediately protecting is what we use because we're trying not to look like we "endorse" a certain page title. It's the same reason we use with Full Protection, we protect whatever version it happens to be on. Admins intervene and protect as an independent third party.

As for that problem there when someone requests move protection and they gives no reason for it to be at a certain article, it should be like a regular move discussion. If it's move protected, discussion should happen to decide where the page belongs. If you make an argument that is within common policy and there is no response, then you should be able to request a page move (using the third section of RFPP). After it has been moved, that should be the new stable name of the article. If the other person comes back and moves it back, then it could almost be considered move vandalism (correcting move vandalism is not counted as a move war). If they do the same move protect and disappear act, I would certainly count that as a violation of

WP:POINT

, or just plain disruption.

The reason we don't get involved is because it's not our job to solve your problems. On something like a move war, it's not our job to pass judgement on who is "right" and who is "wrong". Yes, we might protect the

R!

) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I should point out that I'm an admin also, so I wasn't looking for help per se: although, admittedly, I am in the rather awkward spot now of not being able to move a page to it's correct titles per guidelines :)

My point was rather to give some feedback as an unwitting and unhappy "customer" of this process. I'm not finding it helpful for an admin to see protection request (full of bogus info), accept it, lock the page at that title, and then he and requester both vanish. Page is named against guidelines, I've made a strong case that it's so, but I can't do anything about it. Just a little food for thought. --kingboyk (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that the protecting admin didn't protect the page based on bogus information, but because the page had been moved 6 times in the last 2 days. ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). He also didn't vanish, as you say, but has responded to every comment you've addressed to him, and clearly stated that he doesn't intend to get involved in the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss that here; suffice to say though that you've let a guy who wishes to push his own view which overrides guidelines get away with it! That leaves me as an unsatisfied customer of the process which is all I wish to discuss on this particular talk page and is why I haven't mentioned the article in question. Your sarcastic and holier than thou retorts are not helping much and I don't want to hear any more of them, thank you. --kingboyk (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been gotten away with; just start a discussion at requested moves (

CBM · talk

) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything has a delay at Wikipedia either by design, convention, or just because it's takes us a long time to do something.

R!

) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)