Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 4

message: Since when has indefinite semi-protection been allowed? I thought semi-protection was supposed to be temporary. --ALL IN 02:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but unprotected George W. Bush is nothing short of foolish. And Jimbo himself said that indefinite semi-protection could be used on biographies subject to drive-by nonsense, and he's a big promoter of the "anyone can edit" philosophy. You're right about the userpages though, they shouldn't be indefintely protected, but very few people seem to agree. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I just had added Penis as another example of an indef semi-protected article, but rememberd that it has been briefly unprotected a few times. It seems that articles like that that are blatant vandal targets should be. Why don't we have a list of permanently protected pages, so this can be debated? The way, the truth, and the light 11:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Indefinitely protected' isn't a formal classification for an article (like say, featured is). If a page's protection log is a mile long - full of protections, unprotections and reprotections - people just don't bother unprotecting it and it becomes a de facto 'indefinitely protected article'. To be honest I think we can do away with that term entirely. – Steel 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was suggesting that maybe it should be. It certainly wouldn't hurt to avoid the disruption cause by unprotecting problem articles, while articles that usually aren't would not have to be protected any longer than they need to be. I'm confused why you would 'do away with' the term, indefinitely protected pages exist whether that's formal policy or not. The way, the truth, and the light 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. The term implies that 'indefinitely protected' is a class of articles like featured articles or good articles or whatever, when in reality it's simply a protection that no-one feels the need to lift. And this system works well, I don't really see the need for a bureaucratic approvals process to designate articles 'indefinitely protected class'; indeed, this is a textbook example of instruction creep. – Steel 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a concern that this may contravene the principle of "anyone can edit". I understand the need to reduce vandalism, but the fact is, many of Wikipedia's most popular pages are semi-protected. If the most popular articles can't be edited by anons, we're moving farther and farther away from our values. I feel that we're moving to a Wikipedia where any page that is controversial or popular enough to cause serious dispute is closed to anonomyous editing. A possible solution would be for anonomyous editors to put their edits up for approval, and have the approval threshold be very low, namely "Is this a good-faith edit?" If the approver disagrees with the content of the edit, they can just approve it and then revert it, which is (hopefully) what they would do if a logged in user made the same edit. This seems like the best way to allow all editors to have some influence while preventing vandalism.  By the way, I do have an account, but I'm making this comment anonymously to accentuate my point.  76.84.5.138 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  works well too. Sometimes you get to a point where you have no other choice. Just encourage people to get accounts. The patrolled edit thing was touted a while ago, but I never really liked the idea and it's not implemented on en.wp. Just more work for other people to do because some people will not get accounts. Could you imagine how much extra work that would be? Editors hardly have enough time to do their own work, never mind baby-sitting every annon edit.  -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposal is at WP:FLAGGED. I think this should be put in place on a trial basis to assess its utility, but I'm fairly skeptical that it would be any improvement. The two problems are that a lot of vandals either won't know or care that their work is not seen by the public (and it's still seen by the reviewers), and the amount of work involved in keeping on top of everything and avoiding backlogs. Richard001 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite semi-protection? 

message: Currently Talk:Virginia Tech shootings is sprotected. I find that that would exclude anyone coming to Wikipedia because of the current news event from participating and providing information. If the talk page is sprotected, then shouldn't another page, a Talk talk or something be provided for new editors? They might provided worthwhile information, and it will make sure that Wikipedia is a place where anyone can contribute. Zyxwvutsrqp 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page was protected because people were posting libel on it. I don't think there is an easy solution to this,  if a different page is provided for new editors people would just post libel there instead. – Steel 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A solution would be useful, since as it stands now, it appears as though we are actively discouraging participation from people drawn by current events. Zyxwvutsrqp 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all ears if you have a solution. – Steel 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a policy where the talk page cannot be protected?  People come to Wikipedia to view the article, as the article is where the actual information is.  Eliminating the possiblity of discourse on the topic by protecting the talk page could have such a chilling effect that the credibility of Wikipedia could be at stake.  The talk page is *by definition* not an assertion of truth.  Libel, BY DEFINITION, requires that the matter be asserted as truth.  No reasonable person would believe that things being discussed in a talk page are assertions of truth.  I don't necessarily disagree with protecting the article itself, but the talk page should never be protected.  Rooot 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is moot. It's unprotected now anyway. – Steel 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not moot because the possibility of this happening again still exists.  The issue is greater than one specific incident.  Rooot 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page protection 

message: it is not our duty to make history, but to write history. to write to history and to decide what happened really, historian make researchs and the result must be depended on the real documents not the fake ones secondly citations and documents must not be distorted. as an alternative source of knowledge, wikipedia can share any knowledge that is a fact. however, so called armenian genocide claim has many contradictions. and it has not been proven yet. moreover, the fakeness of the documents that were seen as the proofs of the genocide and the distortion of the documents and the knowledge has been shown on this page. ( http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=90 ) if you have any difficulties understanding the content of the page, i will be pleased to help.
to be fair and to help justice to be served wikipedia must share this information on the web. otherwise, it would be shameful for you.
with my best regards
umut azak
umutazak@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.179.219.3 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly unlikely anyone here can read Turkish, or that they would believe the claims Turks make (who mysteriously are the only ones who deny the genocide). This also has nothing to do with protection policy, which is about protecting pages. Richard001 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  so called armenian genocide 

message: I know this is strange but why did they change the lock color from gold to silver? Personally, I think gold is more appealing and easier to see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.252.24 (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock color 

message: Special:Protectedpages has been updated, and now include many options for sorting and filtering the list, admins may be able to use this to help resolved improper or forgotten protections now. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally! A real replacement for WP:PP. Now we can get somewhere with old articles (since it goes by oldest too it looks like). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got 30-40 really old pages unlocked.  Also helpful to go and set expirys on pages that are currently set for indef. — xaosflux Talk 02:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some protection script to help as well.Voice-of-All 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Protected pages tool 

message: The little icon on the right corner is too subtle and it is confusing new users or anons. Many anons who don't know why it is protected may ask "Where did that edit button go" since the "edit button" will be replaced by "view source". I think that there needs to be at least some text that at least tells the user that this page is protected and to link to a page that shows the reason why. Maybe a small note beside the icon saying "Page protected see (link to reason) for details" or something. -- Hdt83  Chat 22:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, the view source page has wording to that effect. – Steel 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, many people won't know what the "view source" button means... Perhaps the words should be changed to "edit this page" but still link to the same page? -- Hdt83  Chat 05:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I work a lot with computers and after a while I figured out what "View Source" means. However, it would be confusing to many people. I suggest it be replaced with something to the effect of "Page Protected" or "Protected - View Coding" or "AntiVandal Protected". Something that would convey what needs to be understood. Also, "Fully Protected" and "Semi-Protected" and "Temporarily Protected". Maybe "Page Locked" or "Anti-Vandal Lock". There are all kinds of things you could put there. View Source is technical lingo, and should not be used. SadanYagci 18:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotect 2 icon too subtle 

message: As I write, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is locked in a version which includes a contested change. Therefore, the contested version is now policy, in spite of the fact that the change in question has been disputed for over two weeks with no resolution in sight. The disclaimer simply doesn't work in this case.
Policy pages which are locked for edit warring need to be locked as they were before the edit war began. Mangoe 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; unless protected policy pages lose their status while locked, including something disputed in a policy makes little sense. -Amarkov moo! 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a bit too idealistic to implement properly. I can see someone reverting then protecting, then another admin reverting the reversion because they see that as indicating a preference. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No comment on the first half, but the 'locked on the before the edit war' version is suggested here periodically and would be a nightmare to impliment properly, not least because it's not always clear which version is the 'before the edit war' version. A comment I made a few sections up seems relevant here as well: I'm not convinced by the "protect the version prior to the edit war" suggestion. This will encourage people to whinge and wikilawyer over which version is the 'before the edit war' version. A much better use of time and energy would be to discuss the relative merits of the versions and resolve the dispute. (Just quoting myself, not accusing anyone in the WP:NPA war of anything)Perhaps part of the protection policy should be changed with regards to protected policies, it's not the worst suggestion anyone has ever made, but it'll need to be thought through. – Steel 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a new dilemma. I agree with what Steel said though. It's best to discuss the changes on that talk page and get the dispute resolved than try to wikilawyer the right version. Maybe there needs to be a specific protection tag for policies indicating that a certain part of the policy is under dispute (see talk) or something like that. Comments? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that. Actually, I expect it's possible to have the  template say something different if it's placed on a WP page, so it's probably not even necessary to create a separate template. – Steel 02:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume there's a way, but I have no idea (I'm not the best person when it comes to way complicated template syntax). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can get it working, otherwise we can wheel in a template whiz. The wording still needs to be decided upon, at any rate. – Steel 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of a policy page in the "wrong version" is an endorsement 

message: See Template_talk:Pp-move for more details. -- Hdt83  Chat 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move protect lock and info change 

message: Could a table explaining the various colors of locks be added to the policy page?  Silver, gold, and the greenish gold that is on WP:HD don't really emote the particular protection that is in force on a particular page.  I'm just thinking something simple like:
;Examples:
	Gold  	Protected from editing until disputes have been resolved Protected from editing to deal with vandalism Protected from editing to prevent [Page name] from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the  template Protected from editingIt is a high-risk template that has been protected from editing to prevent vandalism.
	Silver	Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled to deal with vandalism, It is a high-risk template that has been protected from editing by new or unregistered users to prevent vandalism, A user talk page that has been protected from editing by new or unregistered users to prevent [User name] and other new users from making disruptive edits, Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled to deal with vandalism by a spambot, Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled.
	Olive 	Protected from moves until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. Protected from moves to prevent page move vandalism.
Dismas|(talk) 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The colours of the padlocks aren't important and we could probably do away with this protection colour coding. The average anon (or some admins, for that matter) isn't going to know or care what colour applies to what protection and we certainly don't need to formalise it by adding it to the policy page. – Steel 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know at least one other admin who had no idea that the colours represented anything :) -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Likewise. >Radiant< 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock colors and what they mean 

message: If semi-protection must be used on a user talk page multiple times, yet every time the vandals wait it out and continue vandalizing the page when the semi-protection ends, do you think that indefinite semi-protection might be acceptable?  If not, what would be recommended?  — Eric Herboso 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be whole-heartedly against indefinite semiprotection of usertalk pages. If a talk page is getting hit by "new users" who are socks, the best course of action is to file a checkuser request under the IP check section. There is only one exception I can think of at the moment (Ryulong, who probably pissed off more vandals and socks than anyone here, but I see that even his talk page has been unprotected for quite a while now). If it needs to be semiprotected for any long period of time, I recommend going with what he did for a while, which was having a talk subpage that is unprotected for IP's/new users to leave you messages at, with a clear note at the top of the usertalk page explaining the situation (and a link to the unprotected page). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That would sound reasonable. >Radiant< 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk semi-protection 

message: Of course we have a definition of heavy vandalism. For "heavy", check your dictionary. For "vandalism", WP:VAND. It's common sense really. >Radiant< 12:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think this is useful. Given the above discussions, it's apparent that the problem is that people don't agree as to what consitutes it. The way, the truth, and the light 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If as you say that is the problem, then the solution would be to define it, not to point out what we already know. Adding such wording to a policy page just gives scope to wikilawyering about the term. >Radiant< 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "heavy vandalism" 

message: I have introduced a Special cases section detailing the two separately operated policy/guidelines.
The Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection page has been labelled disputed since 16 December 2006, and as a guideline since 19 February 2007. Consequently, I believe my edit more fairly represents the current situation. DrKiernan 10:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this to a subsection of the full protection part. It seems reasonable to me. CMummert · talk 12:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection deals with semi-protection (few people seriously advocate the day's FA being fully protected) so doesn't really belong in a subsection of full protection. I would be hesitant to call the main page a special case, since it's fully protected because otherwise it would be vandalised to hell and back, in the same way any other page can be fully protected if they're vandalised that much (see Reality and it's protection log). – Steel 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special cases 

message: After discussions above, I have created Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection.  I'd appreciate input and comments. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good. I think this should be on the protection  policy page so that editors know how semi-protection is to be applied Ttguy 13:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate from the discussion 2 sections up that there is a desire to  keep  the protection policy as it is.  My goal is to create guidelines that help bring people up to speed on current practice.  So I'm O.K. with keeping this on a separate page.  If there are no objections, I'd like to add a link to the semi protection section on policy page that says "See also: Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection" -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection]] 

message: Everyone, little question: on the tennispage, you can read: 
Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled until June 8, 2007 (UTC) to deal with vandalism. . 
But THIS article tells me that 'newely registrated users' are users with an account less than 4 days old. Still, I cannot edit the tennispage.
Anyone knows what I am doing wrong? Fc turner 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound peculiar that you are blocked from editing.  You might check that you are logged in. (If you are not logged in, it will say "log in" on the top right hand tab of your Wiki page.  My experience is of periodically getting logged out automatically for reasons unknown.)  Next you might try Wikipedia:Contact us.  This page is mostly used for other things, so don't expect too much here.  --Thomasmeeks 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not getting it...