Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 3

message: The line User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user is kind of odd. I've seen a couple requests at RPP quoting this. The question is do we really need this? According to WP:USERPAGE, while the userpages are in your userspace, you don't own them. Others can/do make changes (especially in cases of WP:UBM). Should we continue to allow users to just arbitrarily ask for indefinite sprotection of anything they want in their userspace? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it's not really supposed to happen. The current policy states, "Semi-protection should not be used: As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred." -- zzuuzz(talk) 02:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems only slightly contradictory. I mean, if one of your pages in userspace is getting hit, then that's a reason to protect. Just because "it says I can" doesn't seem like a good enough reason. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: User pages can be sprotected when required by any user when the page is being defaced. Permanent semiprotection goes against our wiki spirit. Even George W. Bush is unprotected from time to time. -- ReyBrujo 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this may be true, this is not what the current or the past semi-protection policies say. Should this policy line be changed to reflect, like the other two lines describing indefinite protection, that this only applies to userpages which are "subject to vandalism"? -- zzuuzz(talk) 10:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's really the point. WP:SEMI also says about sprotection that it's not to prohibit anonymous editing in general. That's all this seems to be. WP:USERPAGE says (about protection) that protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical. We've got contradictory things all around. And it just goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, the anyone can edit part. Now, I wouldn't be against move protection of userpages (I move protect mine and talk) because they might not ever be a reason to move it. It's just the editing part. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "it's the wiki way" argument is highly unconvincing. We block/protect hundreds of users/pages every day, which clearly prevents people editing and is "against the wiki way". If we've got contradicting policies, then that's something that obviously needs sorting out. So, I reiterate my questions: Does having indefinitely protected userpages harm the encyclopedia in some way? Does anyone have evidence to refute the claim that 99% of anon edits to userpages are vandalism? – Steel 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your ignoring everything else and just casting all annons as vandals. Do you have anything that says we should disallow it besides "annons are vandals"? That "wiki way" is the way it has been and probably how it always will be. Why should we preemptively protect random userpages? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just said, we go against the "wiki way" all the time, and a few extra protected userpages isn't going to make this place significantly less a wiki. Also, I have not once said we should pre-emptively protect 'random' userpages, nor have I said that all anons are vandals. Either you're misunderstanding me, in which case you should re-read my previous comments, or you attempting to construct a strawman, in which case you should stop. Please answer my questions, the main one being how does having indefinitely protected userpages harm the encyclopedia? – Steel 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not hurt the encyclopedia. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there's no real problem then is there? Glad we've settled that. – Steel 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in this case there needs to be a "why" reason rather than a "why not". -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This wiki has no firm rules. As such, users can do as they see fit unless it's explicitely forbidden by policy, not the other way round (i.e. users can't do anything unless explicitely allowed by policy). So, in actual fact, this is a question of "why should we forbid it?" (the question I'm proposing to you), not "why should we allow it?" (the question you're proposing to me). – Steel 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That argument doesn't work. You're saying, essentially, "this policy must change because it contradicts the userpage policy". I could go over to WP:USER right now and say "this policy needs to change because it contradicts the protection policy". – Steel 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, we need to change one of them. I would prefer changing this one (especially since the "not to prohibit anonymous editing in general" will never get changed on this one). There is no justification to indefinitely protect userpages other than to prohibit annon editing in general. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, what is your definition of "prohibiting anon editing in general"? Secondly, while users don't 'own' their userpages, we let them do what they like with them unless they start adding offensive content or fair use images or whatever. WP:OWN is much, much more relaxed on userpages, the WP:3RR doesn't even apply. None of the points you've made hold any water. – Steel 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Xaosflux on this one. Why do we have to fight here? What we've asking is for you to justify the indefinate protection of userpages. We've told you why not and you've dismissed us every time. Your turn. Tell us a why reason now. Defend the current policy without bringing up wiki-philosophy. Ball's in your court. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it doesn't hurt anything and there's no compelling reason not to if the user wishes it. That is the justification. Users can revert as many times as they like on their userpages, if they want to fill it full of crappy userboxes they can fill it full of crappy userboxes, if they want to post their life story they can post their life story, if they want it deleted they can have it deleted. Allowing them to have it protected if they want it protected isn't that outrageous a suggestion. – Steel 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still within my rights to refuse to do them then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. – Steel 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Steel. Oh, and of course Royalguard is correct that admins aren't obliged to, well, oblige. >Radiant< 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now that Special:Protectedpages is working having >4200 pages is making it's usefulnes well, less useful.  I've filed a bug report to add a namespace selector, but it still shows that we have thousands of uneditable pages without expirations, and filling this with userpages just because isn't helping matters.  While of course no admin is obliged to protect one of these pages, having it in the policy prevents any other admin from removing it without wheeling. — xaosflux Talk 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This brings us right back to the previously discussed point of why anyone would need to remove these protections. Once the per namespace search is implimented this will become a non-issue. – Steel 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That said, and while IPs can easily contribute to main-article space I can't see many reason why IPs would need to edit userpages (apart from vandalism). If they want to be part of the community register. Agathoclea 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the goal, it could be achieved without the need for coutless page protections, we just update it site-wide... — xaosflux Talk 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but then there is the thin edge of the wedge argument. Anyway I found this very enlighening. Agathoclea 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see good edits and bad edits, even anons reverting vandalism in there.  We've seen that any determined vandal will have no problem registering an account by now. — xaosflux Talk 01:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 24 hours and no contest? --Deskana (ya rly) 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, 23. I'm at BST which is obviously UTC + 1. Duhh. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will when I'm back off wikibreak and have the time and motivation to discuss further. Be patient  – Steel 15:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I do object to the removal. It really is no big deal if users want their userpage (not their talk page) semi'ed. The protected page list shows a bunch of examples. >Radiant< 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is that this contradicts the clause underneath it that states that sprotection shouldn't be used to prohibit anonymous editing in general, which I really do feel this does. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes. It is an exception in a specific case to a rule not to protect in general. >Radiant< 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like userpages are the exception to lots of other rules: WP:ATT, WP:OWN/WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Steel 13:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exceptions are always available, but why not make them on a case-by-case basis, rather than namespace: basis? — xaosflux Talk 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's the nature of the namespace (i.e. being people's personal pages) that allows for the exception. Again, WP:OWN, etc. – Steel 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:USER trumps WP:OWN in userspace: As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community (emphases my own). So, they do not own their userpages, they just have more freedom with them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. – Steel 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More freedom doesn't mean "whatever" though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And we don't allow copyright violations, grossly offensive content and the like on userpages. I personally wouldn't put page protection on the same level as advocating paedophilia or breaking the law or whatever. – Steel 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Userpages are except from the 3RR; users are allowed to say "I own this, hands off to new users since I don't trust you". Also, as I mentioned above, given the number of pages we protect and users we block daily, having a few userpages protected here and there won't make this any less a wiki. Incidentally, Wikisource, a wiki, fully protects its featured texts. There is nothing in the concept of the wiki which says that all pages must be kept open unless the sky is threatening to fall. – Steel 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikibooks also protects finished modules if I remember right, but someone who's a sysop there failed to get past RFA here for even suggesting that we semiprotect "finished" articles. Not even same language wiki's are the same in terms of policies and how the community works. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. So userpage protection doesn't go against any "wiki way". – Steel 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on which wiki you're talking about. Here we don't lock "finished articles". So speaking from the POV of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it does go against the wiki way. If this were Wiki-books/source/news then it wouldn't. But it isn't. This is a different community. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we're actually discussing is whether en.wikipedia.org's policy should allow userpage protection on request or not. An argument that appeals to some "wiki way" is a poor one. – Steel 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite Sprotection on Userpages 

message: I still quite strongly feel that unconditional protection of userpages is contrary to the beliefs of the wiki way. Of course they should be protected in instances of extreme vandalism, but I feel that users are saying "I own this, hands off to new users since I don't trust you". That is contrary to the wiki way of letting anyone edit. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Userpages are except from the 3RR; users are allowed to say "I own this, hands off to new users since I don't trust you". Also, as I mentioned above, given the number of pages we protect and users we block daily, having a few userpages protected here and there won't make this any less a wiki. Incidentally, Wikisource, a wiki, fully protects its featured texts. There is nothing in the concept of the wiki which says that all pages must be kept open unless the sky is threatening to fall. – Steel 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikibooks also protects finished modules if I remember right, but someone who's a sysop there failed to get past RFA here for even suggesting that we semiprotect "finished" articles. Not even same language wiki's are the same in terms of policies and how the community works. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. So userpage protection doesn't go against any "wiki way". – Steel 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on which wiki you're talking about. Here we don't lock "finished articles". So speaking from the POV of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it does go against the wiki way. If this were Wiki-books/source/news then it wouldn't. But it isn't. This is a different community. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we're actually discussing is whether en.wikipedia.org's policy should allow userpage protection on request or not. An argument that appeals to some "wiki way" is a poor one. – Steel 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite Sprotection on Userpages (section break) 

message: Is it a good idea to semi-protect a heavily vandalized page — in this case LSD — for one day to give users the chance to recover the article from vandalism. The problem with that page is that it has received vandalism at a high pace during the last weeks interspersed by legit edits and partial reverts and there seem not be enough adept watchers to keep pace. Cacycle 13:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone asked me to protect a page for that reason, I'd probably grant it, since I would argue that it clearly helps the encyclopedia. Whether it needs to be codified in policy is another question, however. – Steel 23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd protect for this reason, but the reason is simply vandalism, and if it was high-paced it may warrant longer then a day even.  The vandalism reason in the current policy should suffice though. — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection to allow for vandalism recovery 

message: Related to the previous question: Could longer semi-protection be a legit method to protect a page from heavy and continous vandalism that comes from anonymous users with changing IP addresses if there are not enough enough adept watchers who are able to properly restore the page. Cacycle 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. Of course. – Steel 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's enshrined in policy, but it's been de facto for a while now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, sorry, this case is already mentioned in the policy. Cacycle 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection against heavy anonymous vandalism 

message: I'm about to fix all the double redirects to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. If, for some reason, these pages were to be split again, anyone can check my contrib history for the redirects that were changed. --- RockMFR 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy redirects 

message: List of homeopaths is a salvaging of an old, VERY bad list which had been invaded by advertising. It's not well-monitored, but the semi-protection guidelines only suggest indefinate semi-protection for not well-monitored biographies. Would it be appropriate to semi-protect it, to keep off the vultures? Adam Cuerden talk 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice 

message: Hello all.  When a high-risk template is protected, should we be putting  at the top of the template's page, or is  on the talk page sufficient?  I always thought it was, but I've just come across a spate of requests to add  to a bunch of templates while going through WP:EPP, and am discussing the best thing to do with the user who made the requests, User:Qxz.  I can't find a guideline or even a rule of thumb about which is best ... personally, I think  on the talk page is fine, but then why would we have an  template? Neil (not Proto ►) 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: adds the template into a category or two, whereas  doesn't. Other than that there isn't much difference. I don't really consider this a big deal; If someone makes an edit protected request, I'll grant it (as I did earlier with one from Qxz), but if I happen upon an untagged protected template I'd probably just leave it. I suppose  would be preferable if you're a categorisation nut. – Steel 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to clarify something that Steel359 may not be aware of, or may have overlooked:  goes on the talk page, whereas  goes on the template page. So it's not a case of choosing one or the other. I was under the impression that both were needed; up until today many protected templates had neither; since the talk pages can be edited I've gone round and added  to them all but I can't add  to the templates because they're protected – Qxz 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Another thing, too –  is used on non-template pages, whereas  is template-specific – Qxz 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware permprot went on the talk and protected template went on the template itself, but didn't notice that permprot was used on non-template pages. – Steel 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template protection 

message: I've noticed a few articles lately being tagged but not actually protected.  Doing this is undoubtedly a disincentive to some ip vandals.  But is it appropriate?  Views? —Moondyne 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging pages as protected when they're not should be avoided, since it's misleading to everybody. I'm unconvinced it actually deters vandals, since the "edit this page" link still glares at them (as opposed to "view source" when the page is actually protected). – Steel 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It only deters the legitimate editors for the reasons stated above. 95% of the time it is new editors who think they are actually applying protection in good faith. They should be pointed to WP:PPOL and WP:RFPP. There is even a user talk page template: . The remainder of the time there are ownership issues. In most cases the editors welcome a pointer towards policy or process. There is simply never any good reason to keep a protected tag on an unprotected page. There is even a bot which removes them now. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sprotect tagging but not protecting

message: What if you protect a page that has vandalism? And where do you go to report such behaviour?--Migospia 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can report vandalism in protected pages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --bainer (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: put  on it's talk page. — xaosflux Talk 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also a good option, although AIV is often faster, which is useful in some cases. --bainer (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation?! 

message: Why not try color-coding locks?
 semi-protection
 full protection
 move protection
 cascade protection
— zero » 03:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those images look a bit childish, sort of like Comic Sans. However, you'll probably be interested in this VPR discussion (permanent link). GracenotesT § 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color-code locks 

message: Until recently the protection-confirmation page said that pages semi-protected for a finite period shouldn't be tageed with the  template; that's now disappeared.  What happened?  I've seen a number of cases recently where a page has been sprotected, another editor has added the template, and no-one has bothered to remove it after the protection has expired. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: would be the person to speak to about this . – Steel 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates on semi-protected pages 

message: Why can people get their userpages sprotected when there is minimal/no vandalism to them? It seems to be in contradiction to the bit that says sprotection shouldn't be used "to prohibit anonymous editing in general". If lots of vandalism is present on a userpage then I see no reason why it can't be sprotected, but we seem to be endorsing pre-emptive sprotection here. I'd strongly support the removal of that clause from the policy. --Deskana (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the users have always been able to mostly freely edit their userspace, and even get it deleted, so I don't see any reason what we should discourage them from protecting it as well. Besides, each user may have his own reasons for the protection; perhaps one user would like to leave Wikipedia and doesn't want anyone screwing with his userspace while he's gone?, or maybe he simply wants to have his userpage deleted permanently? We should think a bit differently here. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point of what I was saying, a bit. The reasons you gave are probably good reasons to protect the pages. I just don't think pages should be protected "just because". If they want to leave and don't want it modified, that's a reason. "Because it's my userpage" seems to be a bit protective, like "I don't want anonymous users editing it, but other users can". Seems a bit exclusive, and the wiki is supposed to be about everyone being equal, including anons. Of course, sometimes we need to take certain measures to prevent anons editing, but saying "I don't trust anons to do it" seems unfair. --Deskana (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed at (reasonable) length above. See Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Indefinate Sprotection on Userpages. – Steel 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just want to respond to Michaelas10 here. Yes we delete userpages on demand. But if someone wants to leave wikipedia and wants their userpage protected for a while then that is totally different than Joe Editor going "hey, don't let people touch my page". Same thing with permanent deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection of userpages 

message: Are we using the  templates now? Because the  templates are still up with no message. -- Hdt83  Chat 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  displays a message. --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking if we are now adopting  to replace the older  templates? -- Hdt83  Chat 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, sorry, I misunderstood you. I have no idea :-p --Deskana (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anybody else have any idea? -- Hdt83  Chat 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *If so I'm sure we'll redirect the old name there as well. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection templates? 

message: On pages that are semi-protected, how long must a user have been registered for before they can edit such pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
*Four days. Says so at the top of the policy. >Radiant< 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Long? 

message: I am suggesting that the disuse of preemptive semi-protection, as it is mandated in §2, to be removed from the policy. I believe that some articles(i.e.Recently Deceased Persons, Controversial events) or articles with topics that would be recently brought to sudden public interest, could benefit from use of preemptive semi-protection. Articles such as these, as any Wikipædian knows, are prone to vandalism, and at the same time, are bound to be suddenly viewed by large volumes of people. Of course, due to their nature, these articles will need to be edited, but the editing can be done by legitimate users. Obviously other policies and guidelines will have to govern this, but those are to be made.--Whytecypress 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many editors would disagree with being called illegitimate, especially when they add much of the content. There is no reason to exclude unregistered editors if there has been no vandalism. If they are excluded you will never know what improvements might have been made. It's only when the trade-off between vandalism and good edits becomes not worth it that protection should be used. This is rarely known in advance. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Semi-protection is not used to prohibit annon editing (and we've all agreed on that in terms of the mainspace). Period. That is one of the foundation issues: The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate...Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering. As it says, it's not debatable. Of course protection policy allows us to temporarily protect pages that are receiving heavy vandalism, but we can't just do it to exclude annons in general. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the issue is easily resolved by not doing it preemptively but reactively. If such articles are indeed prone to vandalism, we don't have to wait for several days, we can just drop the issue on WP:RFPP. >Radiant< 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemptive Semi-Protection