Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 1

message: On Meta:Edit wars, I suggested a software feature that would automatically protect any page that has been reverted to the same version three times.  Such automatic page protection would be subject to the intervention of any sysop and would automatically time out in 48 hours.  As far as I can tell, automatic page protection would have no real impact on the current page protection policy. -- NetEsq 22:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a good idea. Perhaps it should be discussed at m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion. Angela. 05:28, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic page protection

message: Some admins have protected pages of their own that contain greetings and similar material that they do not wish for others to edit.  I believe this idea is anti-Wiki and ask that the pages in question be unprotected.  Users can add such pages to their watchlist to catch any vandalism or undesired editing, or get a web site.
*User:Chris 73/Boilerplate
*User:Flockmeal/Welcome
*User:Blankfaze/Greet
*User:Blankfaze/VW
*User:Lupo/Do not copyvio
*User:Lupo/Img Src
*User:Lupo/Welcome
*User:Eloquence/Boilerplate texts
*User:RickK/stuff
*User:RickK/temp
*User:Snoyes/boiler.
uc 20:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  PS. I thought this was Wikipedia talk:Protection policy.  Deb 11:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion seems to have originally have been at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Proteus (Talk) 18:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boilerplate]] pages 

message: Other than the boilerplate pages, Wikipedia:Protected page currently lists all of two user pages that are currently protected, those being RickK and Deb. I reprotected those because both strongly insist that they want the pages protected.
RickK's page has been protected almost continuously for over a year. Before that, it was vandalized a total of 10 times by what looks to be five different people (i.e. several vandals edited the page more than once). There was also one message improperly left that belonged on the talk page. Since protection, several admins have edited the page, such as to award barnstars, and these edits have not been reverted.
Deb contends that her page has been vandalized, but as far as I can determine, the only unwanted edits in the page's history are simply messages that should have been left on the talk page instead. That doesn't rise to the level of vandalism in my opinion.
I have seen evidence of vandalism in the history of many user pages, but in most instances it is reverted very quickly. There are plenty of people watching Recentchanges ready to jump all over edits to a user page by anyone but that particular user, especially if the edits are from an anonymous IP. --Michael Snow 22:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Current status

message: * Yes. Considering the number of main page lookups and its role as the outward face, I think minutes of unreverted vandalism may be far worse than hours of uncorrected typos or even factual errors. --Eddi 18:28 + 20:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes: protect templates and images used on the main page 

message: * No - the advantages of anyone being able to update it outweigh the disadvantages. However, there does need to be a clear way of being able to get people to fix vandalism like yesterday quickly... --Frankie Roberto 20:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No: don't protect templates and images used on the main page 

message: * Could we not just have all images protected from reuploading, and just have a reupload process, that just like feature or deletion listings (but just like 2 days or something), and from there sysops can replace.  --  user:zanimum
**I suspect this would take a lot more work than a quick daily protect of images used on the main page.  It would also discourage the improvement of images that happens regularly now, and encourage forking of images (which I dislike because it obscures the image history) -- sannse (talk) 22:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives

message: Does this page still need to be listed on RFC? Maurreen 05:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing this from RFC. Maurreen 06:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC?