Sex

Go to The Main Page Add Sex to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy 

Shortcuts:
WT:PROTECT
WT:PPOL
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.
Archive
Archives

Contents

There is a page that has been hacked

This is the only place I could think of placing this but the page to bleach(manga) has been hacked and locked. The page displays one giant figure and no text. How do I report this to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.135.220 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when are U2 'alternative'

They were pretty mainstream last time I checked.

OdinMS private server listed?

Seeing as it is not an official MapleStory server, shouldn't it be removed? --Drake-san (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take concerns to the talk page of the article in question, not here. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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). Happy‑melon 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. Happy‑melon 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. Happy‑melon 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. Happy‑melon 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)

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)

User talk page

Why can't user talk page be protect when user pages can? Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They can, but they are only protected in extreme cases. Talk pages should stay unprotected so that users can receive messages from other users and so they can collaborate. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed obvious

I removed 'obvious' as follows:

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons.

I hope no-one minds me doing this unilaterally, but the adjective in question confuses the sentence. Plus it is tautological with 'clearly' earlier in the sentence. I though it obviously needed removal :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kotniski (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User pages

I wish to propose the reversal of a change effected earlier this year concerning the semi-protection of user pages. Specifically, I wish to contest the re-introduction of the requirement that user pages should only be protected when "subject to heavy vandalism". To give a summary of the timeline:

  • 1 July 2004: The original policy concerning user pages required that they be "subject to repeated vandalism".
  • 12 December 2006: Citing "common practice", the policy is updated to state that "Userpages are not encyclopedic articles and are exempt from many mainspace-specific policies (Ownership of articles and the three-revert rule, to take two examples). Userpages may be semi-protected regardless of whether there has been any previous vandalism to the page, and need not be unprotected unless the owner wishes it."
  • 6 March 2007: Semi-protection policy merged with the protection policy; allows "User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user."
  • 28 March 2008: MZMcBride re-introduces the clause, "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user and when the pages are subject to heavy vandalism." She gives her rationale on a talk page discussion, to which no-one responds (neither favourably nor unfavourably).

Whilst I understand MZMcBride's arguments, I find that the present policy frustrates new constructive editors who take offence at having their user page defaced, and find themselves unable to do anything until it has been vandalised for some unwritten minimum number of times. This is even more applicable to RC patrollers, who would eventually inevitably be targeted. Finally, keep in mind that this is an "opt-in" decision... users who don't wish to have their user page semi-protected simply have to refrain from applying for it. Opinions? Gail (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We did discuss this last March (has it really been over a year?), with no solution. Personally, I think people need to understand it's going to happen. If someone vandalized my userpage, I (or a RC patroller) reverts it, and life goes on. If you're RC patrolling, the likelihood of getting vandalized goes up because users just randomly lash out at whoever's wrecking their "fun". It's not like you can't do nothing. You revert it. Some RC patrollers use rollback, popups, twinkle, and the half-dozen others that have popped up. It's just a userpage, and I'm still opposed to just protecting "upon request" (and I don't do them). If there is vandalism (the threshold being a lot less than articles), the it'll be protected.
Look for Steel will have the opposite opinion of me. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 05:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I think Steel explained his point well, so I will try to avoid repeating any arguments that were already raised. However, I feel that refusing to grant semi-protection following a defacement, no matter how minor or isolated the incident was, is actually hurting Wikipedia because it is losing us constructive editors. Whilst I'm sure that most admins and established editors are capable of completely ignoring personal insults, this is not the case for everyone. Several academics, professionals, children, and any other digital immigrants are not accustomed to the culture shock of being insulted by random strangers; whilst it is true that such attacks may be easily reverted, the fact that we are doing nothing to prevent their re-occurrence is often interpreted as a sign of indifference and passiveness on our part. If nothing else, the "heavy" qualifier should definitely be removed from the clause. Gail (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Gail. --Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Then they're not going to be on Wikipedia long. It's hard to avoid controversy here (I had someone call me a wiki-Nazi, wiki-stalk me for several months across WMF wiki's just because I enforced a couple policies). Wikipedia isn't a place where intellectuals come to politely exchange information or ask legitimate question. It's cutthroat. You're going to get your hands dirty, and it's not going to be pretty. If you think it's suppose to be all rosy and kind, then I sorry you're been mislead into that.
Yes, we should try to keep users around and not loose them. But I don't believe in sheltering them or treating them like they're children. If your user page gets vandalized, I'm not going to come running asking if you're okay, immediately indefinitely protect your userpage so it doesn't happen again, and track down the user and lecture them (they'll probably get a boilerplate warning).
I don't protect userpages just upon request, but that's not to say that other admins don't. Just ask at WP:RFPP, usually they get done. I just leave the requests alone. -Royalguard11(T) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That might currently be the case in practice, but surely it is supposed to be a civil and courteous environment, and we should take what steps we reasonably can to bring it a little closer to that goal. Protecting user pages on request (as long as they are not themselves being used for abusive purposes) seems eminently reasonable, and nothing like the mollycoddling implied in your remarks below.--Kotniski (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree our guidelines should be aspirational as well as practical. — Satori Son 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not raising this issue for myself (my user page is already semi-protected due to past vandalism), but on behalf of the newer users. I never asked anyone to go running after users asking if they're okay. Addressing a user's concern about getting his/her page vandalized again is nothing more than a courtesy to show our appreciation of their contribution. And yes, I'm aware that several admins do not follow the current policy (I've seen user pages of admins being indefinitely fully-protected), but that highlights even further the need to amend the policy to standardize the practice. Gail (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Royalguard is exactly right: Wikipedia is not a particularly friendly place, and those with thin skins will likely not last long.
However, Gail is right as well: There does not seem to have been a predominant consensus for this change. I, for one, believe the determination of whether to semi-protect a talk page should be left to administrative discretion on a case-by-case basis, and this newly(?) included language is overly restrictive and unnecessarily bureaucratic. — Satori Son 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've amended the language to remove the "heavy" requirement, in line with what seems to be the former consensus and current pratice. It still only says administrators "may" apply protection, so those like Royalguard should not feel under any obligation to consider such requests.--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the amended version is fair and representative of the current practice. Gail (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Current language: "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user following vandalism." Sounds fine to me. Gail: Thanks for the heads-up. It was very considerate of you to inform me of this discussion and I really appreciate it. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy that you agree with the amendment :) Gail (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Could not update stat
UP