Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy/Archive 8

message: This is likely a good idea. I especially liked this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Semi-protecting policy pages:
----
What about people like User:68.39.174.238?--MrFishGo Fish 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:68.39.174.238 could create an account.  Or, barring such a drastic measure, he could propose edits to official policies on their talk pages.  Almost all established editors edit with accounts.  While User:68.39.174.238 is welcome to continue editing as an unregistered user, by doing so he is necessarily giving up certain privileges that are normally afforded to established users -- not the least of which are directly creating non-talk pages, directly moving pages, voting in RFA's, and the possibility of becoming an administrator himself. John254 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing he doesn't give up is the privilege of editing Wikipedia. You shouldn't be so keen to take that away from him, too. -Splash - tk 23:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The privilege of editing Wikipedia articles is not synonymous with the privilege of directly editing official policy pages.  Editing these policies is at least as sensitive a function as pagemoves; so, if we can restrict pagemoves to registered users with accounts older than four days, we can certainly limit the editing of official policies in a similar manner. John254 15:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is vastly less important than page-moving. See my comment above for why. The privilege of editing Wikipedia extends to just about all the 13ish (?) namespaces. Mediawiki: being the only exception, because that actually does have the potential to send something really truly belly up. -Splash - tk 16:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't! That's just another pair of pages for it to appear on. Doing it here's fine; it should never have been hacked off into a seperate page anyway. THis is what policy talk pages are for. -Splash - tk 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both Splash and the proposed amendment. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A good idea

message: Would it be possible to bump up the criteria from "less than 4 days old" to "less than 4 days and at least n edits", with n about 20 or so? Otherwise its trivial for a far sighted vandal to keep the account creation going. I know knocking up 20 edits isn't hard but it would raise the bar a bit William M. Connolley 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support such a change - where would the proper place be to propose this, though? This is more something to bring to the attentions of developers rather than on this one page of the English wiki.. Cowman109Talk 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The devs said that this would require database changes to do at the time we originally worked out this policy, since edit count information isn't actually stored by MediaWiki. See Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy/Archive 3#question for developers. By way of asking for as little as possible, and keeping the barriers to editing as low as possible (I confess to this policy having been an abject failure on that count), it wasn't sought at the time. -Splash - tk 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the criteria? 

message: Is there a length on how long something can or should be semi-protected. I just found an article that had been semi-protected since September 22 and was rather stunned that no one had bothered to check back and see that the protection was never lifted. semper fi — Moe 23:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Voice of All seems to be forced to do much of the work, but administrators are encouraged to unprotect long-protected pages by looking at Wikipedia:Protected pages from time to time. Usually just a week or two is good enough unless there's a major problem. Cowman109Talk 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding a category like in  adding all semi-protected pages into a category for how long they have been protected? semper fi — Moe 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. Rx StrangeLove 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be a great tool. --Robdurbar 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I have never particularly understood why the 'examples' exist on this policy page, when we have WP:PP which is far more functional. The reason the examples should not be on the page is that they then appear to be policy to protect those pages forever. In the case of Wikipedia, I am not able to fathom why it suddenly replaced Jew (is it a better example? is Jew a worse example? does someone need to justify protecting Wikipedia so having it in the policy, hey, that's handy?). George W. Bush is about the only example that belongs on the policy page: permanent protection is highly toxic, and this page should not become a surrogate of either that toxin or WP:PP. Splash - tk 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Is this number entirely arbitrary, or is there a reason for its selection? --Littleghostboo[ talk ] 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same limit as applies to being able to move pages around. At the time of instituting the limit for semi-protection (and earlier for moves), 4 days corresponded to something like the newest 2% of accounts. So essentially arbitrary, but handy because something like it already existed in the Mediawiki code at the time WP:SEMI was being developed at a policy and a technical level. -Splash - tk 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four days? 

message: The question has been raised at WP:AN#George W. Bush protection whether it makes sense to use  for pages that are semi-protected more or less permanently.  In response to that discussion, Moe Epsilon very kindly created User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 as an alternative template for high-profile, long-term semi-protected pages.  I am very much in favor of this, but I wanted to bring it up here and see if there are any objections before we start doing it.  Chick Bowen 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, this discussion has been done to death before. One of the counter arguments to this is that new users might get confused (or something) because there is no obvious way to edit the page, as the "edit this page" link would instead display "new source", and may think they can't edit all the pages. To be honest, I really don't care either way. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Somewhere on one of the Wiki mailing lists I seem to recall Jimbo favoring the removal of the  template in those very rare and unique instances where semi-protection isn't all that semi.  Does anyone have a way to search through the archives for this?  RFerreira 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That template is now being used far beyond its original specification on dozens of pages that are neither high-profile nor need long-term semi-protection. Haukur 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for long-term semi-protection 

message: When you attempt to edit a semi-protected page, a message says the page is protected. Any chance we could resolve this confusion? Even I'm not sure whether I can edit the page or not. Stevage 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the message so it now says semi-protected. -- Steel 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Message is at MediaWiki:Semiprotectedpagewarning and the change looks good. By the way though, shoudln't the edit tab be displaying as "view source" if you don't have permission to edit a given page? --W.marsh 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection / protected confusing terminology 

message: If a page is given semi-protected status, could the reason "if not obvious" be put on the talk page or somewhere. I cannot see why France for example should have this designation. (FA, some articles where there is much argument, and "topics currently under evolution" make sense.) Jackiespeel 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find protection reasons by going to the page history, then "view logs for this page". France was protected due to anon vandalism. -- Steel 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of us use "timed library sessions" and others may not be familiar with how to get locate the reasons: I was just using France as an example (having just come across it). Perhaps a link to the relevant explanation from somewhere on the page in question/talk page.
There will always be vandalism and "creative reinterpretation/ rearrangement" (not to mention "getting one's fingers in a twist"), and some pages will need more looking after than others. Possibly a bit more explanation at times may prevent the discouragement of people (not only newbies) who are put off by vandalism or attempts to block it. (Like others I sometimes correct typos etc seen in passing without necessarily signing in - but if I get a "Your number is blocked because of vandalism" message I don't always pursue it, especially if time short.) Jackiespeel 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for semi-protection

message: I suggest that semi-protection should apply to users who have a recently expired block.  For example, if a user was blocked for 24 hours, semi protection should apply as if he was a new user.  This will help cut down on cases where users who have a recently-expired block from immediatly pushing their POV onto an article (as it was done with Joseph Stalin and other articles pushed by the same user.) --Sigma 7 08:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While this is a good idea, it would likely require a lot more work to implement than you've probably assumed. --NEMT 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expired blocks 

message: There are perhaps some lines to add. "La Befana" should become only "Befana". "La" in Italian means "the", and we can omit writing it. 2007 January 6. In Italy, Sicily and Sardinia the Epiphany (Epifania) is the last day of Christmas time. On Twelfth Night, according to the ancient tradition, an ugly old woman (aka Befana) wearing a black shawl on her head, -often represented as a sort of good witch armed with flying broom -goes into the houses through the chimney to bring gifts, cakes or toys to the good children. On Epiphany day children wake up very early in the morning, and, very excited and curious, they hurry to discover what the Befana left for them. If children had been bad instead of toys they will find ash and coal in their socks. Many children believe the Befana is Santa's wife and that she lives on the South Pole. Since the XIII century, Befana's day is one of the most popular Italian feast long awaited by children and recalls the visit of the three Magi to the Holy Child. About Santa Claus. Once best known as Saint Nicholas, his relics and pieces of the body are kept today in the Basilica di San Nicola, Bari (in Southern-Italy). Some observers have reported seeing myrrh exude from these relics and are still studying them. Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors and is often called upon by sailors who are in danger of drowning or being shipwrecked.
--Jack 13:45, 6 Jan 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just my line 

message: This link doesn't work anymore. Should it be removed from the article? Xiner (talk, email) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid link 

message: I've just noticed that an "expiration" tool was added to the semi-protection tool above the confirmation button. I am therefore wondering about the usefulness of this new tool as we already have WP:RFPP where users can request for unprotection. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expiration of semi-protection

message: "Today's featured article" and articles "in the news" attract vandals like magnets.  I think we should semiprotect them to stop the folly. --Smack (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, and its talk page, for a lengthy discussion of this issue. Chick Bowen 21:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect articles featured on the Main Page 

message: On a braod brush strokes view I think it would take the wind out of the sails of wiki to over (semi) protect all/to many/most articles, it would stop  a lot of vigilence, and stop attracting new members, I think wiki would stullify and face instituional creep, as well as possible slow death by a thousand cuts and inbreeding of memes. Wiki needs to attract wild memes to keep alive, literally,   JUBALCAIN 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wild memes 

message: Following this discussion at the Village Pump, I'd like to propose tweaking the wording of the policy in order to allow permanent semi-protection on pages which, although they are not as frequently vandalized as George W. Bush, are typically vandalized in a particularly offensive way. In particular, this would allow for the semi-protection of Nigger, Auschwitz Concentration Camp and the like. Pascal.Tesson 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I understand the arguments for such "pre-emptive" protection, I would be strongly against such permanent (semi-)protection; protect the article only when needed. I've given my (lengthy) views on this matter a few times already, but I'ld be happy to explain my reasoning if requested. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point which Pascal and I have tried to highlight is that these pages are the target of offensive and upsetting vandalism on an ongoing and persistent basis. Certainly George W Bush is repeatedly vandalised, but seeing an edit saying "George Bush, die" is less distressing, except perhaps to his family, than going to Auschwitz concentration camp and finding an edit saying "All Jews should have been burned". And there are much more offensive posts in the edit history. Hence the proposal for permanent semi-protection, which I would support.--Anthony.bradbury 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive semi-protection for highly sensitive pages 

message: Lewis and Clark Expedition has the tag for protection but not working. I just rv'd 3 unregistered edits in a row. --Xiahou 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be working now. It had an expired protection tag. Titoxd(?!?) 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (And just a note: neither adding the tags nor removing the tags will affect the protection status of any page; only administrators can do so via the "protect" tab. The tags are placed there for convenience, but adding a tag will not automatically protect a page, just as a tag remaining on a page doesn't necessarily mean the page is still protected, though it should be - otherwise, the tag should be removed. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lewis and Clark Expedition not working 

message: This page mentions no means of getting an article semiprotected, and it should. Someone please add it, and if you can, post to my talk page about how to do it because I really need to get Joe E. Newsome High School semiprotected (look at the history). Thanks. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post a message to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or WP:RPP (shortcut).  --rogerd 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I request that an article be semiprotected? 

message: Please note that Howard K. Stern is Anna Nicoles husband, not boyfriend.
Andrew Spice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spiceaj (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to article. 

message: From time to time, I've come across pages which appear to be semi-protected, but do not include a  or  tag. My response is normally just to add a  tag, but is there a possible explanation for this other than an oversight by the admin applying the protection? Could there be a legitimate reason for having a semi-protected article which is not marked or categorised as such? AdorableRuffian 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected pages without <nowiki>{{sprotected}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{sprotected2}}</nowiki> 

message: If you would like to comment on doing away with the semiprotection notice on articles that are semiprotected by adding additional information elsewhere, please see this discussion. -- Kjkolb 04:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection notice 

message: It's been suggested that we merge this page with WP:FULL (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 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[WP:FULL]] 

message: Why has the protection "info box" been changed to make it less apparent to users? I always found it a helpful feature... 216.220.15.211 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Protection template?