Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 2

message: With growing use of the Wikimedia Commons to host images, a problem arises particularly with regard to protection of images on the main page and other images prone to vandalism.  Few en: administrators are also administrators on the commons, and present practice on the commons is not to grant adminship to people unless they have contributed to the commons itself, regardless of whether they are admins on other Wikimedia projects.  Therefore, few people have both the interest and ability to handle protection/unprotection in these cases.
Now what?
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: Someone is trying out on nl.wikipedia the idea of blanking a page before protection, for an article in which neither party would accept the other's version. (Note: I can't read Dutch and thus don't edit there, so this is all secondhand knowledge plus Babelfish; the page is here: :nl:Genseiryu_Karate-Do.) 
It might be interesting to try here—in cases where a page is protected due to a content dispute, to blank the page and instead of the current  template with a sort of combination of  and . This does several things. First, the blanking avoids the problem of m:The Wrong Version, and the fact that nobody's version is up gives interested parties more incentive to come to a resolution in a timely fashion. 
The nl: version doesn't, however, make it immediately easy for the reader to see the content of the page. Thus, like the twoversions template, the protection template should give a link to both versions of the page and the diff, so that readers can quickly access some version -- any version! -- of the article and see what the issue is about. 
(Another note: one of the issues with page protection leaving the page stuck on a particular version is that those who like the protected version have little incentive to hurry discussion along: they have prevailed for the moment, and the longer they delay the longer they are certain their preferred version stays.)LOL
Obviously, this is only for pages protected because of edit-warring over content disputes, not for pages protected because of a sudden flood of vandalism; the idea is to limit it to pages where the dispute is between "two otherwise reasonable parties" who cannot reach agreement (as described by someone I bounced this idea off of previously), so that one lone POV-pusher against consensus cannot get a page blanked.
It may be worth trying on an experimental basis at least. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would mean the page would always be protected on The Wrong Version instead of only 50% of the time. It would be worse, not better. --cesarb 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem with this if there are links to both versions.  If it helps people communicate, it's a good thing.  --Kbdank71 17:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Creative idea, but I definitely oppose this. Having some kind of article immediately visible to readers is critical in my mind, even if we know it's flawed and even if we have to bracket it with suitable warnings and disclaimers. This is only useful to the editing part of the community, and only potentially so at best, and the cost to the reading part of the community is not worth it. --Michael Snow 17:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This has been revived as Wikipedia:No version protection. Hopefully it will get more attention this time. --Phroziac (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking before protection?

message: It says that "In general, temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long..." The Anarchism page as been locked since the 8th. In my opinion, that's very long. Is that protection in violation of Wikipedia policy? RJII 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes "very long"?

message: I would suggest that there should be a consensus on how long a page should be temporarily protected.  In cases of vandalism, 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient.  In cases of edit wars, again, I would suggest that 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient.  The only reason to protect a page due to an edit war is to enforce a "cooling-off period", and possibly to allow time for a quickpoll.  It should not be to lock the page in the Right Version.  I think that some pages are protected for an extended period of time because one user makes a protection request, and an admin protects the page as requested, and then does not follow up.  
There does not appear to be any clear guideline for when pages should be unprotected.  I would suggest that 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient.  Robert McClenon 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need guidelines on how long

message: See WP:AN#Stevertigo and Vietnam War. Inspired by this, I am proposing the following addition to this policy:
All edits to a protected article must be noted and explained on the talk page. The only exception to this is adding the  template.
Thryduulf 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a minimum.  I would suggest something stronger, such as All edits to a protected article MUST be noted and explained on the talk page.  The only exception to this is adding the  template.  Edits to protected articles are likely to be considered an abuse of admin privileges and should be avoided. Robert McClenon 11:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All edits to protected pages should be noted at talk

message: Here is a situation that occurs from time to time.  I think that it should be described so that admins can be aware of the situation and use judgment.  An article is subject to edit wars.  There is an emerging consensus, but there is one POV pusher who disagrees with the consensus, and who may have sockpuppets.  The minority editor makes repeated edits that are reverted by the majority.  Then the minority editor requests that the page be protected due to "vandalism", or due to an edit war.  What often happens is that an admin reviews the edit history and sees that there is a majority and a minority, and so protects the page in the Majority Version.  There is no one right answer to this situation, but simply locking the page in the Majority Version is not a long-term solution, nor even much of a short-term solution.  If the POV pusher has violated 3RR, then blocking the offender is the short-term solution.  Mediation may be a better answer.  In extreme cases, arbitration may be necessary to ban a rogue editor.  I think that it needs to be clarified that medium-term to long-term page protection is NOT the answer to edit wars.  
Page protection for 24 to 72 hours may be a good idea for a cooling-off period or to allow consensus to be determined.  Long-term page protection is not the way to deal with an editor who has an open disregard for consensus.  Robert McClenon 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Requests and POV Wars 

message: Similar considerations apply to protecting a page against being moved, only.  In particular, page move protection is appropriate:
*in cases of frequent or on-going page-move vandalism;
*for persistent page-move disputes, on request;
*or where such a dispute continues during the course of a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Comments and suggestions?  An admonition about admins and pages they edit/move is hopefully not specifically required, as it's covered in the general case already.  Alai 04:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, I support you adding it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent...  No yelps of protest, so I'm inclined to take this as an indication this is within the spirit of the existing policy, and "add it and see if I get reverted", rather than having a formal vote.  (After a short wait to see if this provokes said protests...)  Alai 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition:  Page move protection 

message: The test templates (Test0, Test1, Test2, Test2a, Test3, Test4, Test5) are visible on thousands of pages. Although vandalism to these templates isn't that common, there isn't a need to change them often. Additionally, any changes should be discussed on the template's talk page. What do people think about protecting these templates? Personally, I think they should be protected due to high visibility and the fact that they rarely change. Carbonite | Talk 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that seems reasonable.  Robert McClenon 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Templates Protection? 

message: SlimVirgin - Changing official Wikipedia policy to suit your personal needs is a serious matter. I've asked you repeatedly and in a polite manner to hold off on your changes to this policy's definitions of Admin Page Protection powers until the arbitration case against you for abusing those powers is settled. I've also voiced repeated objections to your insertion of those changes at this time and another editor has made similar objections, indicating consensus is against you. Despite all this, you've responded with a rude and uncooperative tone on the talk page and continue to unilaterally add your desired modifications of the policy in spite of all the reasons why it is inappropriate for you to do so at this time. I'm accordingly adding this incident into the arbitration case against you, and asking you once again to exercise greater restraint on this matter until that case is settled and until your changes to official policy do not create objections or conflicts of interest. Rangerdude 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be engaged in stalking and WP:POINT. I'm not changing policy. I added the sentence I'm editing in the first place; I know what I meant to say when I wrote it. If other people here think I'm changing policy someone else would have reverted me, but no one did. And any admin is allowed to take admin action in order to uphold an arbitration ruling. Again, this is not a change in policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting the same objection to the same policy page where you keep making the same self-oriented & thus objectionable change (and unilaterally so at that) is neither stalking nor a point disruption, Slim. If you are adding new clauses and provisions to a policy page that were not there previously, it's a change in the policy. Trying to cloak it as anything other than that isn't constructive. Rangerdude 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RD, policy is supposed to reflect what happens. And the reason I say you're stalking and engaged in WP:POINT is that you're following my edits and objecting to things I agree with for the sake of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this policy on my watchpage, Slim, when you attempted to change the policy in ways that would legitimize your violations of it in the Arbcom case. That's why I noticed when you returned here today and tried to make the same type of changes, and that's why I restored the original policy where you changed the provisions regarding administrator. Rangerdude 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But this isn't the only page you've followed me to, as you well know. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continuous bad faith insinuations and personal attacks are not productive, Slim. I've requested neutral administrator assistance and will be adding evidence of your belligerence here to the Arbcom case. Rangerdude 02:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing official policy for personal reasons

message: Since the preceding section has turned into a tangent that has no realation to the actual policy this page, here's a new section where we'll actually discuss it. I'm not sure what the Arbcom addition is getting at. I don't think arbcom has ever, or will ever, rule tha an article should be protected. They make injunctions or ban people from articles, but what do they have to do with protection policy? Dmcdevit·t 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Arbcom enforcement decisions don't ever seem to prescribe page protection, which is at most a temporary tool for edit disputes. Arbcom enforcements use specific prescriptions such as "If User X violates this ruling, he/she may be blocked for up to 24 hours." The obvious way to enforce one of these if indeed it has been violated is to impose the 24 hour block. Page protection has nothing to do with blocks and isn't necessary to impose one. Rangerdude 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest addition 

message: If anyone is having difficulties with the current system of protection, or just wants more variety, you may be interested in a new proposal called Semi-protection. If you have time, would you please check that page out and add your comments, sugguestions, and edits? Thanks. -Mysekurity 12:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: I've removed some words--apparently added fairly recently--saying administrators mustn't edit protected pages, and I have refactored the text to clearly indicate under what circumstances this is permissible.  To clarify, administrators don't do major edits to protected pages without consensus.  If there is consensus on the talk page, however, administrators may add or remove whole sections without lifting protection.  This may sometimes be necessary in making steps towards dispute resolution or performing necessary changes during a period of protection from vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing protected pages

message: There currently is a straw poll running at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, dealing with a creation of an intermediate level of protection for pages with extreme levels of vandalism from new users. Right now, the policy has strong support, but additional input is always welcome. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy|Semi-protection policy]] 

message: We now need to decide whether information from the semi-protection policy page needs to be added to this one or if it's a better idea to rename this page "Full protection policy". Discussion is at the semi protection page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge semi-protection into this page. -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection policy has been approved

message: I've added this, because I see that many admins are doing it anyway, so it seems to have become de facto policy: "Blocked users now have the ability to edit their talk pages during a block. These may be protected for the duration of the block period if they are being used to make personal attacks or similar, or if the account has been blocked indefinitely." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting the talk page of a blocked user 

message: Okay, so I just semi-protected a page for the first time to deal with a very persistent unregistered vandal working from different accounts. He/she/it seems to have gone away. I would have liked to have had the option of pre-setting the time for semi-protection, e.g, the semi-protection would automatically expire after 48 hours. Then I could walk away and not think about it again. Comments? Ground Zero | t 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good anti-vandal measure; people won't forget to unprotect either.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See bugzilla:4133 for a feature request to enable this. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time-limited protection

message: I'm not sure if this should be here or should actually be a new policy. I have just been to the List of Hillsborough disaster casualties and I thought that it would be useful to protect this page. It's not that it is a particular target for vandals, it's just that there are no conceivable edits that need to be made to this now that all the names are there. 
This is not quite the same as the proposed policy for stable versions of articles as that is more about community consensus that it has reached a high enough level that, although it is conceivable that it could be better, any changes are unlikely to improve it. In this case however there is no other way this list could be written. The only edits therefore will be vandalism.
There are presumably some other (rare) examples of articles like this, where there is only one way of presenting the information - presumably other lists like this one. 
Any thoughts?
--Spondoolicks 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one of those names is wikified. What if an article was written on another of those people in the future? Or what if someone wanted to reorganise the list with more information? Or even just add a category? I'm sure there's more potential edits to that page. Even if the page was "finished", it still shouldn't be protected, that's not what protection's about. --bainer (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query about new reason for protecting an article

message: The contents of MediaWiki:Unprotect will be changed from "Unprotect" to "Protected" and MediaWiki:Protect from "Protect" to "Unprotected" as per discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change "Unprotect" to "Change protection". A copy of the conversation has been posted at MediaWiki talk:Unprotect for posterity. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect to Unprotected and Unprotect to Protected 

message: It has been suggested that Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy be merged with this page, please discuess here:
:Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. Radiant_>|< 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MERGE WITH SEMI- ? 

message: I added the defacto rule that pages linked prominently offsite, or off the main page are never to be protected to the page. Please revert me if there is no consensus for this change, and discuss here. Thanks Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codified unwritten rule 

message: I would like to start protecting articles for Wikipedia:Stable versions. Does it contravene with this policy? -- Zondor 13:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable versions 

message: I just noticed that the Football article has been protected for over two weeks.  Is there a time limit on this kind of thing? --DDG 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Limit on Protection? 

message: Regarding history undeletion for deletion review: While the template explicitly says the page is protected and we do this is a matter of course, it hase been raised that this is not in the page protection policy.  Thus I'd propose adding to "A temporary protection is used for:" the line:
*Allowing for history-only review during discussions on article restoration. 
brenneman{T}{L}  07:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension of protection to {{tl|tempundelete}} 

message: Could someone change this section of the policy to include favoring a version of the article without a possible copyright and fair use violation? I would make the change myself except that I've made comments on an article where this is an issue.  
In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. In this case, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the non-vandalism version. In cases of 3RR violations, admins may protect the version immediately before the first violation i.e. immediately before the first occurrence of a fourth revert. See Wikipedia talk:Revert#The protection option for the discussion on this.
Thanks, FloNight talk 15:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the policy, taken together with other Wikipedia policies, already imply that willful copyright infringement shall be treated as vandalism? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: I changed my user name from User:Idont havaname to User:Idont Havaname in January, and the proper redirects in my User / User talk spaces were set up, but people kept posting messages to my old talk page, not realizing that different capitalization of the user names means different users.  I've protected my old talk page and just have a redirect to my new talk page, since I've missed quite a few messages that were posted to my old talk page.  (See the page history of User talk:Idont havaname for further clarification.)  I intend on having that protection be permanent; is this acceptable?  And do I need to have it listed on the protected pages list? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting the user talk page for my old account 

message: Hi! I was looking to request a page be protected. I found this helpful page, but didn't notice the WP:RFPP link, as it was only mentioned in the "Unprotecting" section. Perhaps a link earlier on would improve the article?  Thanks, --William Pietri 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: mention [[WP:RFPP]] earlier 

message: Hiya, I had a question...  I see in this policy, that it is considered bad form (if not forbidden) for an admin to protect a page that they are involved in editing.  In the case that an admin violates this policy, what is the proper procedure to issue a complaint?  Are there precedents that I can review?  Thanks. --Elonka 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dismayed to note that no one has responded to you here, as I have identified some similar situations.  Posting a complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard may be an option, but there is a potential conflict of interest.  The Arbitration Committee may be appropriate, though that seems a bit drastic. —Psychonaut 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it turned out, that particular incident that I was referring to eventually moved to a Mediation Cabal page, and was resolved that way (let me know if you'd like a link).  There's another more recent incident I'm dealing with, where an admin involved with a discussion has been both protecting the related page, and also doing other things like deleting another user's post off of the discussion page.  However, since the admin is generally a "good" admin, I'm trying to look at it as a temporary lapse in judgment, and not something actionable.  Still though, for other times when this comes up, it would be nice to see this policy (and related policies to prevent abuse of admin access) to actually have some enforceability. --Elonka 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin protecting an article against policy 

message: Maybe Featured Articles should be protected like the Featured Pictures to prevent vandalism. Does anyone think it is a good idea? GangstaEB (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count] • ice slides) 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Raul654/protection. Kirill Lokshin 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a separate policy on this, which is where any discussion should occur: Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles.  John Broughton  |  Talk 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA protection 

message: This section read:
: Users can edit their own User Talk pages, even while blocked. This is in order to allow appeals and discussion about blocks. However, if users abuse this feature, and continue with vandalism on their own User Talk pages, they can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage.
I have changed it to read:
: Users can edit their own User Talk pages, even while blocked. This is in order to allow appeals and discussion about blocks. However, if a user abuses this feature, and continues with vandalism or disruption such as excessive personal attacks on his own User Talk page, the page can be protected from editing, thus disabling this one ability blocked users have at the time of blockage.
This covers a common case of protection of the talk page--where for instance the editor blocked for personal attacks simply continues the offending behavior, or intensifies it, once blocked.  I have also changed the grammar a little to avoid use of the ugly "they" form. --Tony Sidaway 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to "Protecting the talk page of a blocked user"

message: Protection policy often says about new users or very new users. What's the criterion for such a term? A user who joined more than a month or someone who contributed to Wikipedia? Is there any definitions for (very) new user?
--Cyril Thomas 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newness is only relevant for semi-protection. It currently affects unregistered users and accounts less than 4 days old. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is a new user? 

message: Okay, I don't get this.  What are those supposed to be protected for?  If they're at high risk for vandalism, sure, but many "system administration" templates are not included in many pages (some aren't included in any pages at all, but are substed) and therefore can't conceivably be called serious vandalism risks.  What exactly is the reason for protecting a template like (not to point fingers, just as an example) ?  It certainly qualifies under current policy, but has a grand total of . . . six inclusions.  And it's not even substed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Protecting certain ''"system administration"'' pages." 

message: I have my PGP public key stored in a subpage of my user page.  Is it permissible for me to protect this subpage?  It is currently very easy for someone to replace the key with another, and since no one edits the page anyway, it doesn't seem like protection would be a very big deal.  Feedback, thoughts?  Thanks. --bdesham ★ 21:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting a user subpage for security 

message: (Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:This page is protected).
I'm thinking some sophisticated users could "play the sytem" with respect to a controversial topic, if that topic is up for "Good Article" nomination. They could 
# start an artificial controvery
# request protection
# argue until the "Good Article" reviewers give up and yank the nomination (which does not take long)
Doesn't automagic acceptance of a page protection request mean that one unhappy camper (or individual with a highly partisan POV) can thumb his/her nose at the world, at will? Just wondering.
And ... do some particular admins have an affection for protecting pages.. or at the very least, an over-fast trigger-finger ...  making "playing the system" even easier? Do admins ever sit around and think, "If I protect this page, it is a disservice to the community, because it subverts the 'Good Article' nomination process?" Wondering again...
--Ling.Nut 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection as a tool for subverting the "Good Article" nomination process 

message: From the project page:
:Edits can be made to already protected pages via  requests.
If both an article and its talk page are protected, and I desire that an administrator edit the article or its talk page, then on which page should such a request be placed? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try the talk page of the administrator who protected it. For this and several other reasons, discussion pages should never be fully protected except for the amount of time necessary to clean up whatever vandalism. What talk page is fully protected? —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything in this list starting with "Talk", For example: Talk:NEDM. "NEDM" is one of the popular fads on a web site called YTMND. The NEDM article was deleted for non-notability along with several other articles about individual YTMND fads. Standard operating procedure is to turn non-notable articles into redirects to an article about a broader subject, and NEDM at one time redirected to YTMND, but it was re-deleted and re-protected for reasons that I could not understand from the history of the NEDM article. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 02:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to protected talk pages? 

message: The word "css" in this policy is wikilinked to a disambiguation page, and I don't know what it means. If it's Cascading Style Sheets, the wikilink should be piped to that article. Art LaPella 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CSS link

message: I was wondering how come we don't fully lock closed afd/tfd/cfd/mfd discussions? since no one is adviced to edit them after they are finished anyway. Who actually checks the history when looking at old discussion to see that they are no temperered with? Furthermore since an admin closes the discussion it would be pretty convenient to lock it at the same time.  - Tutmosis 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) per suggestion.
*Mostly because there's no need to. People rarely "tamper" with closed discussions; this is only relevant if the closure is under discussion, at which point the tampering will be exceedingly obvious. Note that some closes are made by non-admins, and in general it's an extra step to an already lengthy process. In short, the benefit is too small to warrant the extra workload. (Radiant) 12:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully locking closed discussions: afd / tfd / cfd / mfd 

message: This seems a measure only to be taken in extreme circumstances, and currently misused. Yes, it's a tricky one, particularly when a page is created about a person as a forum for abuse; however, this then means that no page may be created about that person, or about anyone else with the same name. I'd like at least to see a reason for it in every case, as at the moment there are such pages with no explanation whatsoever. As a user, I'm left confused and with an unhappy feeling of being censored.
:This is done specifically when pages are repeatedly re-created. Links to the reasons for the deletion are given in the template. —Centrx→talk • 07:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Protected and deleted" 

message: I would like to protect DELETE THIS, DELETE THIS PAGE, Delete this, and Delete this page to prevent recreation. Does anyone find this controversial? --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any disagreement? 

message: Over on  we've had two incidents where the page was protected, and a Sysop (two separate individuals) edited the page to alter the guideline, without first discussing their change on the talk page, and in both instances where there was also unresolved opposition to such a change. Is this acceptable behaviour? --Barberio 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my understanding of the policy, that is completely unacceptable behavior. The administrators, from what you've told me, were abusing their page protection powers to go against consensus. That's never allowed. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysops editing protected pages 

message: Automatically #Time-limited protection has now been implemented.  We should now address the policy ramifications of it.  I think most protections should be made temporary.  This is essentially already specified by policy.  Specifically, almost all semi-protections should be made temporary since people easily forget them.  What do people think? Superm401 - Talk 20:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Expiration 

message: It's been brought to my attention that cascading semi-protection is possible.  I find this quite surprising, as it enables anyone with a non-new account to semi-protect pages.
Consequently, I don't believe that cascading semi-protection should ever be applied for any reason.  If a page merely requires semi-protection, there's no reason why the sysop can't manually semi-protect the transcluded elements (if need be).
I propose that such this prohibition be added to the protection policy.  —David Levy 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just learned that the cascading protection actually is full (meaning that non-sysops can fully protect pages), I've decided to be bold and add the prohibition to the policy.  —David Levy 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being proactive on this. Superm401 - Talk 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cascading semi-protection

message: I think that if an article is mentioned by the media(especially TV), it should be monitored closely for vandalism, if not semiprotected for a day(I'm primarily suggesting the former, as the latter violates Wikipedia policy).--Vercalos 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media mention 

message: Would somebody more familiar with cascading protection please add a description to the policy (or wikilink) to describe what it is?  I could probably do it, but for the sake of accuracy it might be better if I didn't just describe how I think it works.  Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascading protection: request for description 

message: It's been suggested that we merge this page with WP:SEMI (see WP:LAP). I whipped User:Steel359/Protection policy earlier today and found that the two policy pages merged very easily. Constructive comments welcome (either at User:Steel359/Protection policy or WT:LAP). -- Steel 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[WP:SEMI]] 

message: From a post by User:Rwendland on my talk page, following my protection of an article with potentially libelous information in it:
Any thoughts? – riana_dzasta 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP]], libel and fully protected pages