Wikipedia talk:Semi-protecting policy pages

message: I can't really imagine any reason an anon or brand-new user would have to edit the core set of policy pages anwyay.  They've all been gone over enough that there's few if any typos and such.  And of course the talk pages are always open if anyone feels like proposing anything.  I see a good deal of potential benefit to this and frankly very little harm.  It has my support. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. It's not like any anon or new user would have any reason to be editting any of the policy pages. Moreover, it would deter vandalism to said pages. Naturally, a new user who edits in good faith would need to get familiarised with our policies anyway, a process which would take a few days. By the time they're familiarised with the rules, they've been registered long enough to be able to edit the pages about them. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds good to me 

message: The logs for the semi-protection policy itself show that two administrators have attempted to permanently semi-protect the policy, but one administrator has reverted them. There appears to be a substantial interest in the semi-protection of official policy pages on a continuous basis, which is being obstructed by adherence to the current language of the semi-protection policy. John254 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Existing practices

message: It is a fundamental rule of Wiki-hood that our policy pages are editable, but there is no reason they should editable to newbies and anons.  Anons with experience, or amazing ideas, who are unwilling to register -- as is their right -- can always make proposals on policy talk pages; if these proposals are meritorious, any non-newbie registered editor may add them in short order.  I don't think every policy page necessarily needs immediate semi-protection (there are many of them, and some aren't regularly edited), but where a history of troublesome edits exists, invoking permanent semi-protection should be within the discretion of any admin.  In short, I support this. Xoloz 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that this proposal should definitely be adopted. Allowing non-logged-in and new users to edit policies pages is something no good can possibly come from. Andrew Levine 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly I believe we would be wise to go a step further.  Policy pages could only be modified by administrators.  Guideline pages  could be modified by any logged in user. Those discussion pages and all other pages could be modified by anyone. Terryeo 23:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be too much, actually. Ordinary users, if their ideas agree with consensus, or their edits are minor, should be allowed to contribute, but semi-protecting the page to prevent vandalism would make some sense. Either that or make it a lot easier to gain adminship. 170.215.83.83 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a "no-brainer"

message: ...that after about 3 days and 5 editors, someone decided that this had been thoroughly scrutinized, widely publicized, well-considered and had deep, broad, consensual support. I thought the reason for locking down policy pages was to prevent ill-thought-out edits to them?! -Splash - tk 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't quite believe 

message: More questionable edits to policy pages come from admins with agendas than from new users.  Vandalism is obvious and easy to revert.  Dealing with admins intent on changing the rules is much tougher. 
Most requests for semi-protection are refused.  It's been repeatedly refused for popular pages like Horse, which is vandalized several times a day. Why should policy pages get better treatment?  They're watched by so many people that vandalism won't go unnoticed.   --John Nagle 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was a new user I tried to read every guideline and policy I could before doing most things outside of very basic editing. To say that new users won't even look at policy pages is absurd. Not all newbies are the same. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Personal attack ignored, but added to Permanent Record. --John Nagle 01:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What if they had a good idea, and it worked? Then what??? Rv it and block just 'cuz of some (nasty word not posted) prejudice against "newbies"? What if they had experience doing work on policies similar to those on Wikipedia somewhere? udge by the EDIT not the PERSON, *****! 170.215.83.83 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above anon statement. Unilaterally semi-protecting all policy pages because a few anon users might vandalise them is a bad idea from the outset, for the very reason listed above. Editors (anon and registered alike) are encouraged from the first minute to be bold. How can one be bold and propose a new idea if they're not allowed to edit? Now I know the obvious argument against this will be "well they can propose it on the talk page, an an established user can edit it in." Why should an anon have to go through an extra loophole when they have a good idea? I think if a particular page is dealing with constant vandalism, then it should be semi-protected for a short while to help the vandalism die down, but to do them all? That's just not needed. There's enough people using VandalProof, Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool, Popups, and patrolling the RC page who detect vandalism and revert it in seconds. Just my 0.02USD ^demon[omg plz] 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jay, what are you talking about? It's useless to link to Pump; it's archived constantly. You need to link to a diff to show what an ass I am. John Reid 22:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New users aren't the problem 

message: I see a basic misunderstanding here. Let me fix it: 
Policy pages are not policy. 
This is a subtle distinction and it's not surprising that  fails to make it. Most editors would get confused; I'm sure that those who frequent this page will not
Our community is not governed directly by reference to written policy. Instead, we form community consensus around certain principles and processes. Consensus does not mean that a supermajority votes a page up; it doesn't mean that a cadre of admins stands around a page, reverting and blocking those who attempt to edit it. The status of a page does not determine consensus; rather, it is the other way around -- sometimes.  
Policy pages -- even those labeled "policy" -- do not necessarily track actual project policy. Sometimes the deviations are minor, sometimes major; sometimes they are inserted and removed quickly, sometimes they are present in the initial draft and remain so for years. Like all people everywhere, we do not always say exactly what we mean. Likewise, editors and admins do not always act in accord with actual policy. Sometimes, they cite written policy pages to justify outpolicy action. We have ways of dealing with such people; after all, we see them in the mirror from time to time. 
This is a wiki; that's key. It's very hard for any edit to do lasting harm, no matter how pornographic or foolish. Shit left on article pages does degrade our public image in some proportion to amount, time left on, and number of page views by those offended; this is part of the price we pay for a wide-open-door editing policy. We probably do need to raise the bar to vandalism and astroturfing a very tiny bit. But that's a measure to apply to articlespace. It really doesn't matter at all if proposals are vandalized; they are, by definition, sub rosa. 
To create an absurd example, let's take the case of the rogue anon jimbo who vandalizes the official Wikipedia:Foo policy page, fills it with autofellatio images, then WP:OFFICE-protects and locks the page. So long as a prior good version is available in history, we need be nothing more than slightly inconvenienced; we merely reference the prior version instead of the current. Policy has not changed; only the current version of the page. John Reid 09:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "'Real' anons and genuine new users have no interest in policy pages [as editors]", it would follow all of their edits would be vandalism.  With no good edits from new and unregistered users, semi-protection offers substantial benefits (preventing vandalism) with essentially no costs (because there were no good edits from new and unregistered users).  For articles such as horse, however, the interest in allowing good edits by new and unregistered users is considered to outweigh the interest in preventing vandalism through semi-protection.  The argument against this proposal seems to amount to: "It doesn't matter if these pages get vandalized.  In fact, we should encourage vandalism to these pages by not semi-protecting them, even though such an action wouldn't prevent any legitimate edits.  The current versions of these pages don't matter.  They could, and should be  vandalism-filled garbage dumps, just to dissuade 'admins with agendas' from maliciously modifying them, by undermining whatever reliance might otherwise be placed on the current version of the page."  I submit that this argument is absurd, and is a wholly unjustified slander against Wikipedia's administrators. John254 12:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Policy}} not policy 

message: To further respond to John Reid's comments above, the current state of official policy pages is actually quite important, despite the fact that the literal content of the policy pages is not identical to community consensus as to the policy itself.  Official policy pages are an vital tool in educating and informing new users of the community consensus as to policy. Such pages also serve as important references for established users.  To the extent that such pages contain misinformation, they will misinform their readers, especially newer users who are unlikely to check the page history to determine if they are viewing a "good" version.  Furthermore, an official policy "fill[ed]... with autofellatio images" or other vandalism would give new users entirely the wrong idea about Wikipedia.  Consequently, I strongly disagree with John Reid's claim that leaving official policy pages in such vandalized states would be "nothing more than [a slight inconvenience]]".  If someone "fills... [a Wikipedia official policy] with autofellatio images", we need to revert the vandalism quickly.  However, we would be much better off if we could prevent most vandalism on such pages before it occurred.  Use of semi-protection is disfavored as a vandalism prevention measure on articles because it prevents many legitimate edits by new and unregistered users.  Yet, in the case of official policy pages, semi-protection prevents most vandalism while continuing to allow almost all legitimate edits, because legitimate contributions to official policy pages by new and unregistered users are exceedingly rare.  Therefore, semi-protection of official policy pages will improve their quality. John254 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are users from other Wikis who are not familiar with the English language supposed to do when they want to add transwiki language links to articles, however? Also, it seems that if people really do want to vandalize these pages, they would simply avoid the semi-protection and create a swarm of sockpuppets as has been done in the past to vandalize it anyway. While semi-protection on policy pages removes most drive-by vandalism that gets reverted within minutes anyway, it would also make it much more difficult for minor edits such as grammar and technical issues to be fulfilled. Cowman109Talk 01:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the rare occasion that interwiki links or spelling or grammar fixes need to be made on official policy pages, new and unregistered users can request these changes on the talk page.  "Users from other Wikis who are not familiar with the English language" probably won't be able to access the English Wikipedia at all, or access it so rarely that they do not present substantial considerations in the decision to semi-protect official policy pages.  Allowing large amounts of vandalism and modifications against consensus to occur on these pages simply because on extraordinarily rare occasions new and unregistered users actually make minor constructive contributions to them is not a tradeoff that I, or, it seems, most other Wikipedia editors, are willing to make.  While it is possible to vandalize a semi-protected page, semi-protection greatly reduces the frequency of vandalism, since most vandals lack the technical knowledge of Wikipedia and/or the motivation to vandalize semi-protected pages. John254 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings up one further problem with semi-protecting policy pages.  Most of our policies are not perfect jewels that have been polished and refined to perfection.  Rather, they are "quick hacks to achieve a temporary result" (from WP:PRO).  If policy pages are semi-protected, new users will incorrectly see them as polished, refined gems instead of the "bodgy hacks they are".  JYolkowski // talk 01:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that it's constructive to leave official policy pages un-semi-protected, so as to solicit vandalism for the purpose of disparaging their status. John254 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Wiki.  Because of this, by default, we don't protect pages, block users, etc. without a really good reason.  No such really good reason has been demonstrated.  JYolkowski // talk 01:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Vandalism is bad.  If we have the opportunity to prevent most of it, while allowing almost all legitimate edits, that is a "really good reason" to semi-protect official policy pages. John254 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we protect all pages?  Because this is a Wiki, that's why.  Furthermore, most reverts to policy pages are reverts/edit wars between experienced users, not reverts of vandalism.  JYolkowski // talk 02:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't semi-protect all pages because new and unregistered users frequently make constructive edits to articles and other non-policy pages.  The existence of "reverts/edit wars between experienced users" is not a reason to encourage vandalism on official policy pages. John254 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a lot of people throw out 'most anon edits to policy are vandalism' and 'most reverts to policy are established users', but do we have any statistics?  Those might help clear up some of these points of debate. Shell babelfish 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have any formal statistics.  However, one could examine the edit history of the semi-protection policy itself, which clearly illustrates the phenomenon of new and unregistered users making edits that are almost entirely vandalism. John254 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We should probably collect some then.  I took a look at the last 500 edits to WP:V, dating back 7+ months.  Out of those, 65 were anonymous.  Out of those, around 49 were reverted.  A significant amount of these 49 weren't vandalism, but good-faith edits to attempt to improve grammar or whatever that didn't really.  Note that this works out to about 0.2 reverts of anonymous edits per day, and about 25% of the anonymous edits were kept.  Out of the 500, around 113 of them (25%) were reverts of non-anonymous editors edits.  So, 70% of reverts are of non-anons. Based on these, it's somewhat dubious that most anon edits to policy are vandalism, and seems to be a safe bet that most reverts are reverts of edits by established users.  JYolkowski // talk 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would urge editors to review the edit histories of official policies themselves, rather than accepting the above claim without evidence.  In any case, there's no assertion that edits by new and unregistered users to these pages are actually improving them. John254 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (Tiny comment before I go to bed) - I think it's important to make the distinction between different policy pages. Some are still constantly evolving, while others are more static. I think we can safely say that the Semi-protection policy page has indeed seen almost completely anonymous IP vandalism, but other policy pages have had much more positive contributions, which is why it may be good to only semi-protect (or preferably full) protect those that are set in stone with close to nil chance of further necessary minor changes. Cowman109Talk 03:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Many official policy pages have had almost entirely vandalism from new and unregistered users, as may be verified with a review of their edit histories. John254 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm reminded of what someone said above: "I would urge editors to review the edit histories of official policies themselves, rather than accepting the above claim without evidence." Sound familiar? I've looked through some, and I have found enough constructive edits by new and unregistered users to see little justification for this policy. You've looked through some and found the opposite. Where do we go from here, apart from assuming good faith and believing each other? Carcharoth 16:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia official policy pages are NOT sandboxes

message: There are several competing views as to what constitutes consensus for the purpose of amendments to official policies.  Without attempting to resolve this issue and attempting to define exactly what consensus is, it is clear that under the two most common views of consensus, this amendment has consensus for adoption.  Some users claim that consensus exists where a sufficient supermajority of established users have expressed support for a proposal.  This view is supported by the numerous changes to official policies that have been effectuated as a result of votes, as discussed in detail in my comments on Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote.  If strong supermajority support for a proposal constitutes consensus, it is clear that this proposal has consensus for enactment.  A total of 14 established users (SlimVirgin Stifle Jc37 Starblind Barno Ned Scott Xoloz Andrew Levine Terryeo Alex Bakharev Ligulem Karimarie Jayjg and John254) have expressed support for this proposal on this talk page and on Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy.  By contrast, only 5 established users (JYolkowski Cowman109 Splash Nagle and John Reid) have expressed opposition to this proposal on this talk page and on Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy.  This yields 73.68% support for this proposal, which is certainly sufficient for a relatively minor refinement to the the semi-protection policy to semi-protect official policies.
Alternatively, some users contend that Wikipedia is a "cluocracy" such that disputes generally are, and should be, resolved in favor of whomever has the best reasoning - not in terms of rhetoric but in terms of knowing what works and what doesn'tUnder this definition of consensus, this proposal also has consensus for enactment.  Almost all edits by new and unregistered users to official policies are vandalism and/or obvious changes against consensus.  It is thus clear that the current practice of permitting new and unregistered users to edit official policies isn't working.  Semi-protecting these policies, by contrast, will work, since semi-protection is widely known to greatly reduce the levels of vandalism on pages to which it is applied.  Furthermore, since almost all constructive edits to official policies are made by established users, semi-protection will allow almost all legitimate edits.  Irrespective of which definition of consensus we choose, it is clear that this amendment has consensus for enactment.  Thus, I am adding it to the the semi-protection policy. John254 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)73% is not consensus, and anyway you haven't counted some people who have opposed as opposing (John Nagle, for example).  Furthermore, counting "votes" in a non-poll environment is just silly.  JYolkowski // talk 02:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Nagle is the user who signs his posts as "John Nagle", so he was counted.  73% can indicate consensus.  Creating a poll for this issue would simply be redundant. John254 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Consensus means discussing and coming to a solution that everyone can agree with.  There has not been enough discussion to do so here.  JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Consensus.  This guideline does describe how a supermajority can help to indicate a consensus.  Not once does it claim that consensus requires absolute unanimity (which would make it essentially impossible to achieve). John254 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unanimity isn't the goal - you're right, that is quite difficult, but please look at the section you're referring to.  It starts While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues - I think that's what JYolkowski is asking for.  Just give it some more time and see what can be done about addressing the objections others have. Shell babelfish 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There's not a large number of editors giving input here, have you tried the Village Pump or something similar?  FWIW, I also agree that semi-protection makes sense for official policy/guideline pages; unlike other articles, edits to the policy pages are supposed to have consensus and support of the community first. Since you do appear to have consensus of the editors who have responded, I reverted your inclusion of this idea to the policy. Shell babelfish 02:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need more input on this.  JYolkowski // talk 02:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, JYolkowski did post information about this issue on the Village Pump (). John254 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again I must strongly suggest that you revert your actions, John. There has not nearly been enough time to discuss this and I was preparing a suggestion for an amendment to this before you changed the policy page. There is no rush to get this policy initiated and it is best to make sure that all that needs to be said has been said. Give this another week or two before edit warring like this for the sake of our sanities - the Wiki won't implode if this isn't done right away. Cowman109Talk 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd have to agree - looking back at the history and this talk page, it doesn't seem that all significant objections have been discussed.  There's no hurry on things - building consensus isn't just about how many people think one way or another, its about cooperating to reach an agreement. Shell babelfish 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted enactment

message: Writing my post about the statistics above, one thought that occurred to me was whether there is benefit to making a distinction between policy pages that anons are likely to take their frustrations out on (WP:VAND, WP:SEMI, etc.) and ones that they aren't (WP:V, WP:NOR, etc.)?  I'm kind of tired right now so I'll just throw the idea out and log off right now, but I'll throw this out and see what people think.  JYolkowski // talk 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I'd say that there isn't a great need for this, if an anon or new editor changes/edits a policy page well, editing a policy page is not changing the policy and the edit can be reverted if needed. This is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and all that. And if it's meant to reduce work, traffic on policy pages is a tiny percentage of the total amount of editing going on so it won't make a dent there. Overall, there's a philosophy at work here we should be very cautious about changing. Unless there's a screaming need for this, we shouldn't make such a fundemental change like this without a lot more thought and discussion. Rx StrangeLove 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there's a compelling reason to limit pages that can cause actual damage such as high risk templates and the main page. Editing policy pages doesn't expose us to any real risk. We've never made any across the board distinction between name spaces like this when it comes to editing rights, and there's no compelling reason to do it now. If the bottom line here is to reduce the reverting workload, I don't see it as an important enough rational to make such a fundamental change in the wiki philosophy. Being a Wiki comes with a cost for sure, but in this case it's a pretty small one compared to making such an elemental policy change. At least without a lot more discussion among a lot more participants. Rx StrangeLove 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wiki philosophy means that anyone can contribute and no distinctions are made between editors of different levels of experience. Also, our policy pages are not WikiMedia pages (as a general platform), they are Wikipedia specific pages and we've never made any distinction between policy and article pages when it comes to editing rights. Restricting content editing privileges by class of user is a fundamental change. We do have some minor restrictions for new users but nothing that limits them to this extent. I was using a general meaning of the word namespace and you can disregard it if you'd like, but the point is still valid. Semi-protecting policy pages (official or not) is a fundamental change in the way we do things here. They may make up a small fraction of the total amount of pages here but they are an important part of what we do here. Also, the fact that they do amount to a fraction of the total number pages argues against making a change like this in order to reduce workload...the number of pages are few in number. Rx StrangeLove 06:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the idea is that anyone can edit / contribute to articles. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that we've never made a practical distinction before, policy, along with articles have always been open to everyone. We should be careful in making a change like this...note that I'm asking for more thought and discussion before something like this is put in place. Rx StrangeLove 06:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think policy and articles are even near the same level of "editability". Apples and oranges, my friend, the distinction is obvious. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:FAITH is a core principle of the community, we have always allowed anyone to edit anything, until clear evidence of disruptive editing is present.  Protecting any page for which there isn't any real evidence of disruptive vandalism is a big shift from that core principle.  JYolkowski // talk 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One idea towards a possible compromise 

message: Wikipedia:Vandalism is already semi-protected, and has been more or less continuously since February 2006.  Since the set of "policy pages that anons are likely to take their frustrations out on" could easily be interpreted as the  set of policy pages that would be semi-protected even under the existing policy, this isn't really a "compromise" at all.  Furthermore, it fails to address concerns that new and unregistered users generally aren't contributing constructively to any official policy pages. John254 05:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I strongly disagree with Cowman109's suggestion that we should fully protect any official policies on a continuous basis.  Full protection of these pages should be strictly limited to a temporary protection used to stop edit wars, and where absolutely necessary to prevent severe vandalism that cannot be stopped with semi-protection.  Full protection effectively writes most established users out of the policy making process, even when such users have extensive Wikipedia experience and a through understanding of our policies and practices. John254 05:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to "One idea towards a possible compromise" above

message: The actual wording of this amendment to the semi-protection policy has not yet been discussed. This should be looked at clearly. I think we should stray away from words like 'should' and 'must', but instead use 'may', as some policy pages may benefit more from semi-protection than others. Any comments? Cowman109Talk 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a version of the proposed amendment that the editors who have opposed the old version of this amendment can support?  If we can enact the amendment with the new wording, and use it to semi-protect Wikipedia:Protection policy, Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and other official policy pages that are subject to significant IP vandalism, but not enough vandalism to qualify for semi-protection under the existing policy, I would support it.  Naturally, I am assuming that Wikipedia:Protection policy, Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, etc, can actually be semi-protected under the new wording, and that the administrators who opposed the old version of this amendment are willing to perform the semi-protections themselves if necessary. John254 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, there was no old version unless I'm mistaken? No offense, but you simply took words and put them on the Semi-protection policy page without setting them in stone first here, so I figured we can start that. I do agree that some policy pages should be semi-protected, just not all of them. Simple, yet not necessarily binding wording such as this will allow administrators to not be so afraid to semi-protect policy pages, at least. Cowman109Talk 06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim that I am "Calling people and their opinions stupid and dismissing them" is factually incorrect, and asserted without evidence.  Nor did I "invent statistical countings that mean they don't matter" -- I merely described the number of users expressing support and opposition to the proposal.  Quantifying support from an analysis of a discussion avoids the substantial difficulties that are associated with attempting to hold an actual vote on Wikipedia.  Furthermore, there is actually a great benefit associated with semi-protecting certain official policy pages, as such semi-protection will greatly reduce vandalism while continuing to allow almost all legitimate edits.  This proposal is not intended to "[throw] out the notion that people can edit this project freely" any more than Wikipedia:High-risk templates is intended for that supposed purpose.  Semi-protection of some official policy pages, much fewer in number than the articles that are fully protected at this very moment (see Wikipedia:List_of_protected_pages#Full_protection), is hardly "[throwing] out the notion that people can edit this project freely." John254 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were talking about "cluocracy". That is precisely the same as saying that people are clueless which is a partially civil way of saying someone is stupid. If protected article pages are a bad thing, then go and get them unprotected, don't protect policy pages to match. -Splash - tk 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "cluocracy" was used by Radiant!, who wrote Wikipedia:Cluocracy.  Comments regarding the naming of this essay should be directed to its author.  I merely cited the essay as an example of a theory regarding the nature of consensus, and not as an endorsement of the essay's name. Additionally, if unprotecting all of the fully protected articles listed at Wikipedia:List_of_protected_pages#Full_protection were advisable, we presumably would have done so already. John254 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Since the new version of this amendment is supported by Cowman109, is consistent with the "compromise solution" proposed by JYolkowski and supported by Radiant! and Jc37, and would seem to be better than nothing from the perspective of the supermajority of editors who expressed their support for the original version (described on Wikipedia_talk:Semi-protecting_policy_pages#Enactment), it has consensus.  I am therefore enacting the new version. John254 14:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any qualms with this in the current way it is said. I simply felt the previous form was too strict as it implied that all policy pages _must_ be semi-protected, but this should only be done where there is already a good deal of evidence that the policy page is (mostly) static in terms of minor changes and that there are indeed problems with anonymous editing. Cowman109Talk 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Will you stop it. You found 4 people who agree with you. Big deal. Fix the problems with your proposal first; principally that there are plenty of well-reasoned objections, and then do your 'enacting'. Stop being a bully about this. Also, judging from the recent history of WP:SEMI you personally have reverted the page a good number of times in the last period of time, and are barely observing the 3RR. Stop edit warring over your proposal. -Splash - tk 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that this proposal is gradually appearing on people's radar. I'm notorious for turning up late, but since I've added myself to the ranks opposing this proposal, maybe some more people will turn up in the next two weeks. I'd give it some more time. For what it is worth, John's warning on Splash's talk page is what brought this to my attention. Carcharoth 16:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted enactment of new version

message: Do we have suggestions for which policy pages should indeed be protected? Cowman109Talk 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them. You don't get to find what, 4 people? who agree with you and say oh yes, we can make it up as we go now. -Splash - tk 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm disappointed that after a mere 36 hours from proposal, this is being even considered. Splash - tk 16:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wait, he put it on the semi-protection page? Oh I didn't read that far. We are still supposed to be discussing this... John I would highly recommend you leave the adding the amendment to someone else instead of doing so yourself, as you're clearly subconsciously biased in favor of this. It would be better for a third party to go ahead and add this once a clear consensus is driven. Once again, policy changing takes time, and we should give this at least 2 more weeks. The wiki won't implode in the process. Cowman109Talk 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed, of course, that Cowman109 offered the new version of the amendment, and that JYolkowski offered the "possible compromise" in good faith, not as a deliberate attempt to disrupt this discussion by suggesting a "compromise" that even the users proposing the "compromise" are unwilling to support or help to effectuate.  It wouldn't be appropriate to use the "compromise" to defeat the original proposal, if the "compromise" itself can't be enacted. John254 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that the criteria would be that the pages are receiving significant vandalism from new and unregistered users, but not enough vandalism to justify semi-protection under the existing criteria.  Such pages may also be linked directly from the MediaWiki interface.  For instance, Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy are linked from MediaWiki:Protectedtext; Wikipedia:Blocking policy is linked from MediaWiki:Blockedtext.  "Support[ing] or help[ing] to effectuate" the "compromise" may mean semi-protecting the pages, as administrators not involved in this discussion may not wish to take action on a matter which is perceived to be disputed. Similarly, if an editor insists on reverting the language added to the semi-protection policy, I obviously can't add the amendment by myself. John254 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not get your compromise. One way you can be sure of soundly discrediting it is by forcing and demanding and editwarring over it. You seem to be determined to press on, right now, at all costs and somehow to run roughshod over any - and all - disagreement. You cannot possibly demonstrate the kind of broad consensus that rewrites policy if you go about it like that. Now in the section one up, I described the way to make policy. You'd well (or at least better) to follow that advice. Splash - tk 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: John, I am quite upset that you used my attempt to compromise to try to implement a change to the policy that I would strongly disagree with.  Is this going to make me more likely to attempt to compromise with you further in this discussion?  Not likely.  Also, please assume good faith on the part of those that disagree with you; this hasn't previously been evident on your part.  JYolkowski // talk 20:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JYolkowski hasn't explained why he would disagree with the language I attempted to add to the semi-protection policy, or why it is inconsistent with his "possible compromise".  Obviously, not changing the policy at all is the same outcome that would occur if the proposal were defeated, and is thus not a "compromise".  Furthermore, Wikipedia:Assume good faith states that Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith. John254 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to squabble about that instead of discussing your proposal,  is a more recent example.  JYolkowski // talk 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:AGF doesn't require us to accept an unreferenced statistical analysis in a policy discussion. John254 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What policy pages should be semi-protected? 

message: I may have missed it, but has anyone suggested the meta-wiki way? I used to get really annoyed when I came across Help pages that had the "Do not edit this page. It will be updated from the master copy at meta:whatever and all edits will be lost at the next update". I've never been bothered enough to register a meta-wiki account to go and edit those pages, but the concept of having the policy pages another step away (ie. transcluded from another wiki) seems to be what people wanting semi-protection want. I would oppose this as well, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Carcharoth 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Help:Page_history. I realise that help pages, like MediaWiki pages, are different again from policy pages and high-risk templates, but the different approaches show that a one-size protection policy doesn't fit all pages. Anyway, is the proposed "stable pages" thing any closer, and will that invalidate this proposal? Carcharoth 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meta-wiki way 

message: A poll has been opened to assist in the determination of consensus for this proposal. John254 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This at the same time that you are continuing to try to force this onto the WP:SEMI page, now with a tag, before there is even a proper proposal, before it has consensus and while you are trying to force things even further by dumping a poll all over this. You need to give this some time, and understand that you are possibly not going to see your proposal fly, and for good reason. Splash - tk 17:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll has been blanked and redirected by Splash.  John254 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revived the poll. I don't like the idea of holding a poll right now either, but that doesn't give me the right to arbitrarily throw it out. Instead, I say this: John254, you should take it down voluntarily and wait for more debate to take place on this issue before attempting to show that a consensus has been reached. And Splash, just abstain from voting in the poll. That's best way to show that it's unwarranted right now. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: When I see a proposal being forcibly cludged over the community in the way that this has, I begin to feel that it is being pursued out of single-mindedness and pure muscularity. So far we have seen:
:One, two, three, four attempts to simply paint this as already accepted, and . All of these are from the same editor. All of these are in the face of a litany of people, including some moderate supporters of a possible compromise proposal, asking for slowness and consideration rather than haste and force.
:One, two, three, four, five attempts at a live experiment of a process that so far as I can determine has never even been suggested about a policy that has no agreement;
:A poll linked above
All from the same editor. Editing in this kind of way discredits the proposal more-or-less automatically because it is clearly being carried out without consideration and, more crucially, without consensus.
Splash - tk 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed coming close to borderline disruption in my opinion. Make a post on WP:ANI if you would like something done about this, though, not here. Cowman109Talk 18:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've the buttons to do something about it myself, and the thought has crossed my mind. But posting here for these purposes is better, since it pertains directly to this proposal's lifespan/development and status. Splash - tk 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited? 

message: Since the policy proposal suggested the semi-protection of all official policy pages, the notices transcluded from template:Semi-protection proposal related to a proposed action that would be taken on the specific pages to which the notices were posted.  I did not post notices concerning unrelated policy proposals to any official policy pages.  Notices are frequently placed on various pages to notify contributors of discussions concerning other proposed administrative actions, such as deletions.  Therefore, it should be permissible to place notices on policy pages to notify contributors of a discussion concerning the proposed semi-protection of those very pages.  Indeed, I would suggest that such a method of informing users of the existence of this discussion would be the one of the few manners in which participation in this discussion could be increased -- information concerning this discussion has already been posted to template:cent and the village pump.  Since it has frequently been contended that this proposal cannot possibly have consensus despite supermajority support because of the limited number of editors who have participated in the discussion concerning it, concealing the existence of this discussion would ensure that consensus, as the editors opposing this proposal define it, can never be achieved.  Similarly, I opened the semi-protecting policy pages poll to address concerns that this proposed amendment could not be enacted without a vote.  If we cannot enact the proposal without a vote, and we cannot hold a vote, then we can never enact the proposal, irrespective of how much support it has garnered.
	Since the users who oppose this proposal accuse me of "coming close to borderline disruption", however, it is quite legitimate for me to offer my own critique of the behavior that the users who oppose this proposal have employed in efforts to defeat it.  I did not attempt to enact this proposal until five established users had expressed their support for it, and the only user opposing it, JYolkowski, had discontinued his participation in this discussion after all of his objections had been addressed.  When I first enacted this proposal, it was treated as valid policy by two administrators  .  Indeed, this proposal would probably be valid policy right now if Cowman109 hadn't lobbied both administrators to unprotect the pages  .  In fact, Cowman109 had to contact Jossi again to further encourage him to unprotect the pages .  When Jossi finally did so, he stated that he was unprotecting the pages solely because Cowman109 requested this actionI have unprotected, but I was responding to a request based on the underatsnding that policy pages should remain sprotected. I will leave this in your hands.  Furthermore, Cowman109 requested the unprotection of these pages with an entirely procedural argument  which did not concern the merits of the amendment at all, but essentially asserted that the amendment couldn't possibly have consensus since he deemed the length of the discussion and the number of editors participating in it to be inadequate.  I found this argument to be unpersuasive since  JYolkowski, the only editor who, at that time, had offered any substantive objections to the proposed amendment, stated that Regardless of the above proposal, it is absolutely not a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand [at all]. This is a widely-held but incorrect belief.
When I decided to enact the proposal again , the talk page had been entirely inactive for nearly a day and a half.  Fourteen established users had expressed their support for this proposal, and only five had expressed opposition.  Additionally, all objections to the amendment had been addressed.  JYolkowski, having declined to participate in the discussion for several days previously, began to raise new objections to the proposal six minutes after I stated that I intended to enact it  .  Although Shell Kinney had recognized that there was consensus for the enactment of this proposal, and restored the amendment after JYolkowski had removed it from the semi-protection policy, JYolkowski encouraged Shell Kinney to remove the amendment from the policy, on the basis that the new objections to the proposal he had raised half an hour earlier hadn't been addressed.  Obviously, if users opposing a proposal withhold some of their objections for several days, allow a discussion to become inactive for a day and half, then suddenly raise new objections immediately after an attempt is made to enact the proposal, it will indeed be the case that their objections have not been addressed.  However, it is unfair to demand that a proposal not be enacted because of unaddressed objections when the objections are withheld, then suddenly introduced immediately following an attempted enactment, as JYolkowski did.  Indeed, Shell Kinney did remove the amendment from the semi-protection policy, on the grounds that the "significant objections" which had materialized on the talk page immediately following an attempt to enact the proposal, but couldn't possibly have been made in the days preceding it, had "not been dealt with."
I haven't even discussed how JYolkowski offered a "possible compromise" that wasn't, or how  Splash advised me to "Stop being a bully about this" proposal, then proceeded to threaten to use his administrative powers against a user with whom he was involved in a content dispute , despite the fact that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used clearly states that Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.  So, far from this proposal being "discredited" by my actions, I would suggest that, if anything, the behavior of the users who have opposed this proposal discredits their opposition. John254 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are still many objections that have been left unanswered, myself. And just for the record, the original reasoning I had for giving this more discussion was that I personally disagreed with it, but had not yet formulated a response to post on this page. John254, you are taking things way too quickly and aggressively, so that is why it is important for you to just take this slowly. The world won't end if this proposal gets discussed for another few weeks, as there are clearly some serious concerns. Policy pages cannot be enacted so quickly, and looking at your contributions it seems you've become detached from the article space, so perhaps just going back to editing in the article namespace for a few days and then coming back here with a fresh breath of air may be positive, as you are clearly getting overworked by this. It would indeed be inappropriate for Splash to use his sysop powers to block you anyway, which is why I suggested that any such complaints about user behavior either go to WP:ANI for neutral administrators to look over, or an RFC. Cowman109Talk 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't use my sysop buttons, and did not threaten to. I did say it had crossed my mind. That's tough. Wikipedia:Thoughtcrime is a redlink and could only turn blue if the year were 1984. Splash - tk 23:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, another user's private thoughts are clearly not my concern.  However, what I take issue with is that Splash stated that he was considering using his administrative powers in a highly inappropriate manner.  An editor's statements on Wikipedia are not thoughts -- they are actions.  Furthermore, a statement that one is contemplating a certain action is tantamount to threatening the action itself. John254 23:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's not conceal the existence of this discussion

message: I'm confused about what's going on here. John has made a proposal that policies be sprotected. That they should be sprotected shouldn't be added to the semi-protection policy immediately (I agree with Splash and others on that point), but the proposal should be widely disseminated so that the community can comment on it. Yet Splash is removing information about the proposal from other pages.
John and whoever else supports it, please post a link to this page on other policy talk pages (or as a tag on the policy page if you prefer) and to the village pump. Then everyone can discuss it calmly without falling out. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed an excess of Wikidrama here :). Dmcdevit also left a note on John's talkpage asking him to not make such requests directly on the policy pages as well, however, so I'm not sure what's going on there. This does seem to be a policy proposal that encompasses many (if not all) other policy pages, however, so making notes on their talk pages would indeed be a good step, and as this would of course involve administrators, maybe a WP:AN post concerning it may be beneficial as well. Cowman109Talk 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The best thing is to post the proposal in as many places as is reasonable: to the mailing list, to AN, to the village pump, and on some of the key policy talk pages. No need for Wikidrama; not that that ever stopped us. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Widely disseminating a policy proposal means post it on WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), in addition to the talk page where it belongs, Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centrx has been reverting the placement of these notices using administrative rollback.  It's not surprising that the number of participants in this discussion is limited if it cannot be adequately publicized. John254 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centrx blocked me for 20 minutes when I had reverted his removal. Totally not cool and unacceptable. He has given no explanation nor cited any policy or guideline to support his actions. Isn't this what they call censorship? I could understand that this might be seen as spamming, but to actually block me over this is.............. *deep breath* . It's totally disrespectful. If he had at least left something more than the small message on my talk page (that seemed to only indicate his preference), or even left a message here (I checked here before reverting the change, actually, since I figured he had a good reason, but he had given none) I would not have reverted his removal. There was no reason to block me whatsoever. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I understand a bit of the confusion now. I was under the impression that the template was being completely removed, instead of just being removed from talk pages of policy that were less likely to be affected. Actually, there are a few that I still think should have the notice, but the point being that I somewhat understand Centrx's point of view on the matter. Not that I totally agree with the removal, but it does help me see why he removed it. Now if only he actually mentioned this here, or in his edit summary, there wouldn't have been this confusion... -- Ned Scott 06:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: ...is not whether new and unregistered users are a bane to policy pages, or whether vast preponderance of them make the vast preponderance of stupid edits on Wikipedia. That is clearly the case, and to argue otherwise is to use a teapot as a submarine. The real question is whether or not we are willing to stop making semi-protected pages the exception, and start making them the rule; to stop asking why whenever we discuss abridging the principle that this is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and start asking why not. I can't and won't support this, or any amended or revised version of it. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to all of the above comments, I didn't call for the end of protection or semi-protection. What I'm saying is that pages should only be protected or semi-protected when there is a real, continuing threat to their integrity and usefulness because of vandalism or naive editing.  The main page and the reference desk are fine examples of that. What I oppose is the protection of pages simply because they're "that important", because it might one day be vandalized.  I think that there ought to be a very compelling community interest in protecting a page before it is restricted, and it is for that principle that I must oppose this. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Question 

message: I submit that the decision as to what level of protection, if any, a page should have should be based on a cost-benefit analysis which weighs the interest in editability of the page against the interest in prevention of vandalism or other edits which need to be immediately reverted.  Since new and unregistered users often make constructive contributions to articles, the interest in editability of articles necessarily weighs against semi-protection, and properly results in a policy which only permits semi-protection of articles where necessary to prevent heavy vandalism, heavy WP:BLP violations, or other serious disruption.  However, new and unregistered users almost never make constructive contributions to official policies, and, indeed, lack the Wikipedia experience necessary to ascertain consensus regarding matters of Wikipedia policy.  Consequently, semi-protection of official policies results in essentially no loss of editability for constructive purposes, while resulting in a significant reduction in vandalism and other immediately revertible edits.   For official policies, semi-protection offers substantial benefits with negligible costs.  To actually increase the editability of Wikipedia official policies, we might consider the removal of full protection from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Fair use, and Wikipedia:Username, which is preventing established users from editing these policies.  Since these policies were fully protected due to edit wars, it would be necessary to resolve the disputes underlying them before unprotection.  Perhaps we could ask the arbitration committee to authoritatively resolve these issues, just as it is now considered the status of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy.  In any case, opposing this amendment is not going to improve the editability of official policies.  Semi-protecting official policies offers great vandalism-reduction benefits, and it won't prevent anyone with a modicum of Wikipedia experience from editing them. John254 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A cost-benefit analysis

message: I came to this discussion after wanting to sprotect WP:CSD, since it has been subject to a rash of vandalism in the last week or so. I looked at the list of semi-protected pages, and didn't see any policy/guideline pages there, offhand. So I read WP:SEMI, specifically When not to use semi-protection, and there was no specific mention of not sprotecting policy pages. So, is there presently an unwritten consensus against sprotecting policy pages? Or is it just on a case-by-case basis, as with any other type of page? --MCB 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Case-by-case.  WP:VAND is the only policy page that's currently more-or-less permanently semiprotected.  Temporary semiprotection happens on various pages from time to time.  JYolkowski // talk 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That seems reasonable, although I personally favor the blanket semi-protection policy. --MCB 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Given the conversation on this page, I think it would be reasonable to add a line or two to WP:SEMI stating that policy pages may be semi'd on a case-by-case basis, and that the "standards" for doing so are somewhat different than those for articles (i.e. it's less big of a deal to semi a policy for a week than it would be to semi an article for a week). Still, if there's little or no vandalism, there's no reason to semi. (Radiant) 13:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **Right now WP:SEMI says: "some articles with a history of vandalism, such as George W. Bush may be semi-protected on a continuous basis".  Maybe it might be worthwhile to change "articles" to "pages" and tighten up the wording of that sentence so that people don't apply it to everything.  JYolkowski // talk 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly *is* the status quo, anyway? 

message: Can anyone supply links to the categories for protected and semi-protected pages? Then the reasons for protection and semi-protection could be discussed here, along with an extension of the "trade-off" argument, which I think has potential. I'm thinking that maybe an actual bar for "vandalism rate" could be used to trigger semi-protection once the vandalism rate exceeds a certain level. Carcharoth 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which pages are semi-protected and protected? 

message: Wow, this really needs archiving.  Someone may have mentioned this but it takes less time for me to write this than to read all that.
Considering the amount of time it takes for vandalism to get reverted (I'd demonstrate, but I don't think that would go over well), this seems unnecessary.  Indeed, this discussion appears to have taken more editing time than reverting does.  I hate to be lame and quote Jimbo here, but as this is a fundamental principle of his:
"For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community."
""You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred"
So editors are immediately and automatically given full priveleges.  Obviously, those priveleges get revoked pretty quickly in cases of v andals, but for others, why exclude them?  Besides, what better way to make a newcomer feel welcome than by letting them help make the rules (as I already have, in fact)?
Finally, unregistered (someone very wise once said that's a better way to put it than "anonymous") editors aren't always unregistered because they're still experimenting.  Often it's because they don't want to edit with a name, for whatever reason.  I've seen the talk pages of some unregistered editors that were chock full of praise, and no one hassles them about it.  What this really comes down to is, "do unregistered/anonymous editors have the same leeway on Wikipedia as registered ones?"  The answer, according to Jimbo's principles at least, is yes.
Now obviously there are some exceptions:
#Page moving - well, that's because it takes more than a click or two to revert, and if the vandal is clever, can only be undone by sysops.
#New articles - because those may take several steps by non-sysops to get rid of (tagging with PROD or SPEEDY), and require the watching of Special:Newpages or Special:Recentchanges to catch bad contributions (in contrast to policy pages, which can be watchlisted)
#Deletion debates - prevents run-in voting by vanity article subject fans.
These are all things where anon editors definitely have more potential of being harmful than helpful.  The first two cases above are to prevent vandalism that is more difficult to catch than is worth being possible by anyone who stumbles on the move button or a redlink. The third case, deletion debates, is because a person should show some level of commitment and judgement in Wikipedia matters to decide what is essentially a mandate to a sysop to perform an action.  But edits to articles AND policy pages are usually different.  They are usually a) clearly beneficial, and independent of a trust in a person's judgement, b)obvious vandalism or otherwise detrimental, and easily reverted in a few clicks by anyone or c) controversial edits decided by consensus in discussion and independent of the editor.  So excluding unregistered users from editing them would only promote elitism and heirarchy, it would seem, and not really solve any problem. 66.231.130.70 01:58, 10 November 2006
*Since Jimbo Wales permits semi-protections to occur, they clearly are consistent with his principles, despite arguments to the contrary.  The question here is merely exactly when semi-protection should be employed on official policy pages.  Moreover, the example 66.231.130.70 offered of the supposed benefits of permitting unregistered users to edit official policy pages has, ironically, served as an example of why new and unregistered users should not edit official policy pages.  On November 7, 66.231.130.70 removed a translation from Zhao Yun, claiming that the translation from the original Chinese by the contributor was original research.  When Nck88 replaced the translation, and observed that  You cite first person research as a justification for deleting the translation, however, Wikipedia:No original research makes no mention of translation, and Wikipedia:Translation states that translation from original sources is fine and encouraged as along as the original document is either GFDL or public_domain as this one is, because of its age.66.231.130.70 responded by amending Wikipedia:No original research to support his position in the content dispute.  66.231.130.70's edit was inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, which states that English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources...thereby implying that English-language sources are not absolutely required, and thus that translations by Wikipedia contributors should not be characterized as impermissible original research. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Translation into English states that  for copyright reasons, this page is not for requesting translation of sources external to any Wikipedia.  The exception to this is if you can also show that the license conditions of the source page would permit its redistribution under the GFDL, e.g. if the page is public domain or itself GFDL-ed, or if permission has been obtained from the author.  which would seem to imply the publication of the resulting translations of freely licensed works in Wikipedia articles is permissible. John254 03:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if they do _not_ make such edits, or by luck or something see that there is no consensus, then I fail to see the need for permanent semi-protection. Furthermore, an anonymous user could have a large amount of experience (note: the experience of the editor should not be used to judge their edit, rather the nature of the edit itself is what should judge it) and still be barred from adding stuff. PERMANENENT semi-protection I stand against. 170.215.83.83 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's principles 

message: I know this proposal is about policy pages, so the question should really be "Who writes Wikipedia policy pages?", but I thought this article (which some of you may have already read), might be of interest, particularly given the discussion about IP editing: Who writes Wikipedia?. Though actually, another article from the same source might be of even more interest and relevance to this proposal: Who runs Wikipedia?. Carcharoth 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That new and unregistered users write much of Wikipedia's encyclopedic content does not imply that such users should directly edit official policy pages.  Almost all of the content in Wikipedia's official policy pages was written by established users, who had sufficient Wikipedia experience to ascertain consensus. John254 04:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think that a single user should ever write policy (except from the Foundation, etc). To say that Anons write policy is not accurate at all. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's lucky I didn't say that then! ie. I agree with your last sentence. But this is an example of how easy it is to "be sure" that you know who writes what, and to get it wrong. Carcharoth 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who writes Wikipedia? 

message: Let me see if I can shine a little light on this from the side. You say the new editor is more likely to do damage than good to a policy page. I say maybe but a) we can fix it; b) no real harm is done meanwhile; c) it's only a policy page, less important than any article; and d) most of all, we leave the door open for the newest community member to participate directly in editing community policy because that's who we are.
Let me tell a Passover story from my youth. I was invited to a Seder, a Passover dinner, at which much good food was served and some interesting stories told about the Exodus. There was quite a gathering there, all ages. Yet despite the crowded table, there was an empty chair and place setting -- plate, glass, flatware, napkin, even a placemat. Who were we waiting for? Why did we start eating without him? 
"Ah, that's a plate for Messiah!" Non-theologians may need to recall that the chief difference between Christians and Jews is that the former are waiting for the Second Coming; the latter for the First. I was younger then and questioned the sense of it. There's Hannah and Ruth sitting right on each other's laps; Uncle Milty's elbow is in the gefilte fish. Maybe Messiah comes next year; this year, it's a crowded table, no offense, glad you asked me. But --?
The Old Bull at the head of the table looked me in the eye. "Yes, but what if He should come right this minute? What if He should open the front door now and walk in? He shouldn't have a seat? He shouldn't eat with us, drink with us to celebrate our release from bondage? Maybe He doesn't want to come today, maybe He comes today, He's tired from the long trip, He just wants to lie down, take a little nap. But if Messiah comes today, to this house, and if He wants to share our table, there's His plate. That's who we are." 
John Reid ° 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Policy pages are already watched like a hawk, so any sort of edit the anon makes will quite rapidly be seen. What if the edit is something very simple, like correcting a small typo? Barring that would be horribly unreasonable. 170.215.83.83 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate for Messiah 

message: :Let me jump in before anyone else does, and ask you what the 'plate' analogy equivalents are of List of banned users and List of indefinitely protected pages? Carcharoth 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Protected templates has grown to what I think of as unacceptable limits. We do this not because it's socially necessary; templates can be reverted like any other page. We do this from technical limitations. Templates are massive edit amplifiers; it's not unusual for a template to be transcluded thousands of times and some, tens of thousands. You make any edit to a really high-use template -- good or bad -- and the entire server coughs, sometimes chokes. The revert can be done as easily as the edit -- and the entire server stumbles again. In some cases, caching issues mean rendered pages may lag for days. In some cases, the costs are excessive when balanced against possible benefits. In other cases, I argue that it's just silly to protect. I don't think this issue has gotten right out of hand but it's good to keep an eye on it. If you see a template that doesn't need protection, protest. 
The entire MediaWiki namespace is protected; this contains elements of the user interface. I've edited these pages (on another MediaWiki install) and it's no fun. Devs assumed nobody would ever really want to edit them at all; they took a good programming approach and made it possible, but it's still obscure or misleading in some cases. That's why so many unrelated MW installs call themselves "The Free Encyclopedia". Most editors don't even see the subtitle; I see it every day on Cologne Blue skin. Obviously, it's just too crazy to permit open editing here. 
This leaves the whole issue of OFFICE protection, which is definitely unwikilike. In some cases it's a necessary evil; trouble is, we don't know if it is in any given case or simply an overreaction. We probably need to face up to the practical reality that some pages are going to be protected in m:The Wrong Version not because they were libelous but because their subjects are just way too powerful and threatening for us to deal with. In order to properly source negative claims, we need to collaborate and if we even discuss the issue forthrightly on talk, we open the door to the little weevils. Fortunately, our community is well aware of the risks of excess here and Danny is aware of us. 
So, to sum up, both of your concerns are real -- but I don't think either have grown way outside acceptable limits yet. Keep an eye on these issues; it's only through community oversight that we keep these unwikilike actions to a minimum. 
The evil of the current proposal is that it intends to slam the door across the board to all policy. We may as well hand out little serf hats at the door, give new editors links to sandbox and leave them there until they demonstrate they can edit wisely. If any of them do anything really great, we can fish it out of sandbox and put it in ourselves. Ahhh, isn't that nice! No more kids underfoot; we can turn up the teevee and slide in the porno from Germany. John Reid ° 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to add a little here, banning just because an account is used sparingly with few significant edits (is that what you were talking about by the "expedient banning"?) would prevent the person (I think banning bans the IP too, in any case WP:SOCK would seem to (unfairly) prohibit use of sock puppets to make legit contribs) from making any good edits, and any good edits, no matter how small, are still a benefit to Wikipedia!!! This is a _free_ encyclopedia and _everyone's_ positive contributions should be respected. 170.215.83.83 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other unwikilike activities 

message: I don't see why anons should be allowed to edit policy pages to start with. People shouldn't even touch them with a ten-foot pole until they know why the policy exists and what effects their edits would have. Since vandalism to policy pages can have very nasty consequences, I don't see why we should make policing them hard. Just semi-protect the lot. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mgm|Mgm's]] view 

message: Since no consensus exists to implement this policy proposal and the debate is moribund, the policy is rejected by the community.  Ned Scott has reverted my marking of the page with the rejected tag so I invite further discussion as to what tagging  , ,  is appropriate.  Eluchil404 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected Redux