Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection/Archive1

message: Any plans to update this to include semi-protection? It doesn't need to be rethought too much, but a mention of the new situation and your thoughts would be helpful. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 20:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Raul654 20:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi 

message: Why not promote the contents of this page into a Wikipedia policy or guideline?  I think perhaps it belongs in the Wikipedia namespace instead of a user namespace for both authenticity and visibility reasons.  As it is a summary of other established policies anyway it shouldn't be too controversial. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I never envisioned it as a policy; I was just really, really, really tired of typing the same response over and over again :) Raul654 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making this a policy is even more absurd than not protecting the main page FA in the first place.Rlevse 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not promote this to policy? 

message: So, this is a policy? It's being treated like one, and I've been told it's one. WikiFanatic 06:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a condensation and restatement of existing policy.  So, if it's not technically policy, it agrees with policy in every way. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - it's not policy, as much as it is an amalgamation of policy. Raul654 03:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Pretty much. Because some new users didn't seem to understand that, I've moved this page to mainspace and flagged it as such. Comments welcome, and if you can think of a better title please do so. (Radiant) 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy 

message: Now this is in the policy space, I've reworded it a bit to be more policy and less essay-like. I think I've stuck to the contents pretty much, but if anyone disagrees with the rewording I'd be happy to discuss here ;) --Robdurbar 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording

message: A few proposed changes to the policy.  Remove emphasis on "NEVER" and include administrators' responsibilities when deciding to protect the featured article or when deciding to remove protection.  Removed text is stricken, added text is underlined.--DaveOinSF 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to this policy 

message: *Well the clause about having to monitor with it for half an hour is unworkable. Firstly, its unprovable and slightly bizarre - I unprotect the FA, the phone rings and what - I ignore it? I appreciate what it's trying to do, but it could bring up all sorts of accusations. For example, I know that I've tried 'patrolling' the FA after I've unprotected it to avoid such accusations; but I have a slow internet connection and have been 'beaten to it' almost every time. It's instruction keep; perhaps retain the sentence about giving it thought though.
*I like the notification process idea 
--Robdurbar 21:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the request to drop a line at ANI is a good idea. The other changes are pretty much semantics. --Robdurbar 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but I think the semantics matters here in at least one case - we want to clearly favor semi-protect, not just carefully choose semi-protect or protect - --Trödel 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the intent was not to equate protection and semi-protection, but to remove emphasis on the word "NEVER", promote greater communication, and to encourage caution for admins who might want to unprotect a protected article.  Obviously, I've failed in that regard, and will give it some thought as to how to better do this.--DaveOinSF 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good thx!!!--Trödel 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to proposed change

message: From rationales:
The featured article receives many page views from non-editing readers as well. It is damaging to Wikipedia to encourage new readers to visit a page that displays vulgar or offensive vandalism.
That sounds like a strong reason not to have this as a policy. Why is it on there in support of the policy? Grandmasterka 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meant to justify occaisional semi-protection. --Robdurbar 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Occaisional semi-protection is very different from the other points which advocate no protection whatsoever; being grouped with the other points doesn't make sense.  "Whaaaaa???" indeed!  The other points under Rationale is for "Don't protect Main Page featured articles".  This point should be under it a separate heading.  Goose 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whaaaaaa??? 

message: Ideologically speaking, I always felt that the goal of Wikipedia was to create a great encyclopedia, not just to allow anons to edit. Historically, anon editting has been more or less helpful, but we should always remember what we're actually here to do... it seems quite misguided when people act like the purpose of Wikipedia is simply to allow anonymous editting and fight the resulting vandals. --W.marsh 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon editing is undoubtedly a good thing for the project as a whole and I think it would be very bad to see any result from this analysis used to condemn anon editing in general. My concern is specifically with the circumstances of FAs of the day—the existing high quality of the page, reducing the need for further edits, and the visibility of the page, which has the duel effect of attracting very high numbers of vandals as well as very high numbers of ordinary readers who will be turned off to some degree by the vandals. I don't feel that the quality issue or the visibility issue would be sufficient to justify automatic semiprotection on its own, but being together in these instances, I think there's a strong case for it. Everyking 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm undecided about semi-protection of the main page and semi-protection in general, but I believe we should be openminded and not assume anything is totally off limits, like assuming we have to forever allow anon edits everywhere no matter what... that's just dogmatic. Of course I do understand that we're just talking about the main page FA here. It occurs to me that whenever the main page FA is getting heavilly vandalized, we usually see anons/new users begging for admins to protect the article... but when it's protected, we never see them begging for unprotection (except ones that seem like obvious vandals). I wonder how valid the logic is anymore that readers are more upset when they see the main page FA protected than when they see it horrifically vandalized. And how much damage we do by operating on an assumption that seems to be more in the minds of a few admins than readers at large. --W.marsh 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and cons 

message: I removed this header as although things are being discussed, it is misleading to people who are referred here to explain current policy. --Trödel 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputedpolicy