Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages
All substantial edits to a protected page should be proposed on its talk page, and will be implemented if a consensus is found to do so. If the page is fully-protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{editprotected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.


[edit] Why just color

This is not what is in guidelines.. I see an increasing number of maps and charts with just the color differences... sometimes the colors are so close..please give some pattern on the locks to help the users who are not so good at differentiating based on colors.... Why cant you have different shaped colors or simply a no. on the lock to tell the level of protection..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't even tell the difference between locks, I always have to look up what kind of protection is in effect. We should really be using the banners more often, but people like the little locks too much. I guess we could have an S, P, M, O or something on them or something. I'd have no trouble with it.
We used to have only one lock (gold I believe), then someone thought we should have different colours and nobody objected at the time. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've always liked the different colours (I was the instigator of using the red padlock for permanent protection); but I can see how people could have difficulty telling them apart. I've added mouseover text to the small padlocks, so you can more easily see what protection is in place. Happymelon 10:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why does full protection have to be on?

How come it has to be on?

[edit] Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll

Well, what can I say. Someone resurrected my proposal from last year to overhaul autoconfirmed status. It has already gotten coverage from the Signpost, and is currently leaning towards 7 days/20 edits, a limit I see as reasonable. I hope that people who watch this page will take a moment to participate in the poll. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain exactly what the proposal is? Thanks.  Chzz  ►  16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to change who is "autoconfirmed". Right now, after 4 days you're automatically autoconfirmed. In Jan 07, it was announced that we could now require a number of edits plus time for someone to become autoconfirmed. I made a proposal last fall to change it to requiring 4 days and 20 edits to become autoconfirmed, which didn't get enough discussion and was rejected by the devs. Now, it's been revived with multiple proposals. 7 days/20 edits has the highest support right now. If that succeeds, then a new user will not be autoconfirmed (be able to edit semiprotected pages, move pages, a few other things) until 7 days after registering and only after making 20 edits.
The idea was to get rid of long term vandals (Quebec was my example, but it seems the vandal who had like 90 socks finally retired) who would make sleeper accounts, wait 4 days, and launch a full scale attack on semiprotected pages which could only really be stopped by full protecting the page (which as I've pointed out above sucks). This would allow us to semiprotect some common vandal pages with a better effect and we wouldn't have to fully protect as much just due to vandalism. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, OK, just spotted this. I see it was a straw poll, and is now closed. Although it was presented as a straw poll, it appears that somewhere along the line an actual decision was made. Can somebody clarify?
I think the ballot was flawed in a pretty significant way: the number of edits increased in direct proportion to the number of days. I don't think 7 days is a particularly bad limit, but 20 edits seems like a pretty enormous number for a new editor. It is easy for more experienced editors to forget how timid many of our best editors are in their early days; I don't think that's something to discourage. It takes some time to build up confidence, or to find the areas in most need of help. Meanwhile, we will be unnecessarily discouraging good faith editors from helping out with semi-protected articles, image uploads, etc. -Pete (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You should really discuss at that talk page, but in any case the poll is closed. I believe as of now (unless I've missed something) the autoconfirmed level stands at 4 days and 10 edits (because of a bad request on bugzilla). But full discussion is on Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone list how to use padlocks here?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradymonty (talkcontribs)

If you're asking who can protect pages, the answer is only administrators can protect pages. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism following a Google "logo link"

I noticed this morning that Google had (again) changed their home-page logo. (For those few residents of Outer Mongolia using Wikipedia but not Google, Google often change their graphics to reflect a particular "notable event" associated with a particular day ; this graphic is linked to a standard Google page searching for articles on the subject of the graphic.) The top article on today's search page was, unsurprisingly, a Wikipadia article ; when I went to visit it, the vandalism banner had been raised on the page.
This begs the question of ... well, two questions, actually

  • how often does this happen (viz, is today's incident of vandalism an isolated event or a common thing, as I suspect is likely)? and
  • does anyone know what topics Google are likely to be using in up-coming days, so that pre-emptive vandalism protection could be enabled?

I would assume that Google have a fair "pipeline" during which their cartoonist cranks up the creative juices, inks up his graphics tablet and does whatever he does. So, there's a potential at least for Google to pass the appropriate information to Wikipedia as an organisation. Or, if there's a Wikipedia admin in Google's staff, to install and remove the vandalism flags in good time.
Looking through the Google logo page, I see a discussion of the considerable administrative background to the process, so including some sort of checking for the consequences of making such prominent links.
Aidan Karley (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first things first, protection is not preemptive. Secondly, from what I see clicking on the google logo links to a google search, of which a Wikipedia article happens to be the first result (which isn't a surprise). They didn't link directly to Wikipedia. Thirdly, Google is an independent website that can do (and they do) anything they want. I don't think it would really make a difference if they told us, maybe more people would watch the page. If there's a lot of vandalism it'll get protected (which it has by the looks of it). Nothing else we can really do. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move protection for special articles

I would like to propose that we protect from move important articles like

a) Real important personalities. For example Max Planck, Friedrich Engels, etc.

b) Countries. For example Greece, etc.

c) Important cities. For example Rome, etc.

and as extra I think User pages can be available for moving only by the user itself and administrators.

Please tell me your opinion about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Number 1, (as always) protection of any kind isn't preemptive. Pages are move protected on a case by case basis based on recent move wars, we don't just do batch protections. You can always ask for protection at WP:RFPP too. Your second proposal (user pages) is interesting, but cannot be implemented at this time because of software limitations. I think I've heard the proposal before but I'm not sure. I know that user .js and .css pages are only editable and movable by the user and admins so the basis for the code is probably there, but currently pages can only be semiprotected or fully protected. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Since we know that some articles can be moved only in very special occasions, why don't establish that? Less work in revering/requesting protection/etc.-- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Because that would be turning away from our most fundamental principle, which is that we're "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". For a long time after wikipedia was first created, the tools now reserved for admins were given to all editors; adding the autoconfirmed level was a huge step to take. The biggest question is: how do we define an "important" article, or one that "can be moved only in very special occasions"? Countries, places, are both good examples, but so are all biographies, not just "important" ones. Where do you draw the line? For that matter, can you name me a page on-wiki which shouldn't be move-protected if pages which don't need to be moved should?? Carry this to its conclusion, and a significant fraction of wikipedia's articles deserve move-protection - even if that's only 5%, that's 100,000 pages. Any overhead administrators would save in not having to manage move protections would pale into insignificance besides the task of implementing that protection in the first place, and then in moving all the pages which genuinely need to be moved (which would be regular and common events). Happymelon 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope it's understandable that the moto "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is always within a frame. That's the reason we already have many page protected. I propose a small extension. Not a major one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you're proposing an extention from the carefully-defined box we currently have, to a box with an outer boundary which is so fuzzy as to be utterly undefinable. How do you objectively define "important article" such that it does not constitute the majority of the encyclopedia? Please note, however, that I actually support your proposal of limiting pagemoves in the User: and User talk: namespaces to admins and the userspace's owner, provided we work out a few technical caveats first. Happymelon 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I get your point. Ok, my last shot: How about: "All countries and capitals of countries should be protected from page move"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
But why those and not articles on numbers or letters of the alphabet? :D You see the problem: where does one stop? It's impossible, so it's best just not to start down that road in the first place. Happymelon 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I see the difficulties. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm back again. This time I would like to propose the move protection for all Wikipedia:Featured articles. These articles are really important and action for moves should be limited. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh god here we go again :D. This time, though, I'm on your side - I can't see any reason not to do this - the advantages you correctly note above still apply (more so because the FAs take a good proportion of our traffic - something like 8% IIRC), and it's a very clearly delimited group, so none of the problems from above. Happymelon 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Woo woo! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first proposition is an excellent one. As for the notion that WP is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this is of course true, but it's a notion that assumes that the anyone thinks like a sane, sober adult. Sane, sober adults have no need to rename these pages in a great hurry, other of course than after some lamer has renamed them stupidly (e.g. "on wheels"). But the lamer wouldn't have been able to rename them if we'd adopted this sensible suggestion of yours.

One drawback of your proposition is that cretinous page-renaming is conspicuous, and since WP is anyway sure to be the target of drunks, small children, psychopaths, etc., better that they should be provided with footballs such as these. But I'm not convinced. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible idea. Count me in favor. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we were making those assumptions. We assume good faith, not "assume sober adult". You can be drunk and edit Wikipedia (see: Wikiholioc quiz) as long as you don't do something stupid. You can also be underage and edit Wikipedia. You also don't have to be "sane". There is no litmus test for who can edit Wikipedia. That's why it says anyone. And that's why we don't assume that they are an adult, sober, or even sane. All policies come from this thinking, none make any assumptions. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against the editing of WP by the underage, drunk or insane. I merely demand that they edit as if they were adult, sober and sane.
What are the chances that an editor (possibly childish, drunk or even insane, but acting in good faith) would have a pressing need to make a constructive move elsewhere of, Max Planck, Greece, Rome, or indeed User:Royalguard11?
My own guess is that they're vanishingly low, and that any of them would be better first brought up, discussed and agreed to on an appropriate talk page.
There's a single exception I can think of, which is the pressing need to move an article about Max Planck back to "Max Planck" from "Max Fuck" or whatever had been given it shortly before by somebody with a mental age of nine.
What am I overlooking? Can you give a single example of an undiscussed and constructive renaming (other than to mop up after vandalism or other stupidity) of an article on a real important personality, country, important city, or (other) user?
Meanwhile, would you care for some examples of unconstructive renaming? (For a long time there were a lot involving wheels; recently there have been a lot involving penises and ejaculation.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No examples forthcoming? Would it be unfair to suggest that this is typical as a profile of a newly arrived mover of well-established articles? -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, articles will be protected on a case-by-case basis, there will be no batch protecting of any kind. Protection is not preemptive. If you'd like to change that you need a bigger venue (the pump or something). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is an interesting idea. I would recommend that you take it up on the Village Pump or the mailing list to get a more broad consensus on it before we consider implementing it, though. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that we can safely invoke IAR here, it is indeed said that semi protection and creation protection should not be used preemptively. But it's not even clear in other cases, and moving is not editing. In view of the damage inflected by recent page-move vandalisms, it could be in the interest of Wikipedia to adopt this kind of counter measures. Some pages should never be moved, at least without discussion, so basically, I think that it should be left to the administrator's discretion to move-protect a page. I agree that we need a broader venue if we want to make important changes, or let people know somehow. Cenarium (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

I don't have anything really to say that's important, but it is kinda ironic that the Protection policy page is protected. --Alien joe (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's only semi-protected to prevent IP vandalism (long history there). Registered users are able to edit it. — Satori Son 15:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)