Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Page protection patrol


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus leaning towards keep. PeterSymonds (talk)  12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection patrol
Redundant and confusing fork of protection efforts at WP:RFPP, Nominations and Patrol sections seem to remind me of other efforts have been rejected, like CVU or Stress alerts  MBisanz  talk 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments at WP:THINKTANK and Neighborhood watch (forthcoming). Any confusion can be avoided by having a note on the page that requests for page un/protection should be taken to WP:RFPP. From what I hear, there are many hundred, if not 1,000 pages on indefinite/permanent protection. This is an attempt to gather some people together to work on this issue, come up with creative ways of addressing it, analyze systemic protection-related problems, etc. and keep a unified archive of related discussions in one place for future reference. I think it can be useful; let's give it a bit more time please to bear fruit. It was started less than a week ago. It should be noted that in the case of Stress alerts, "Inactivity overcame the project and ceased after a while, and the page was marked as historical"; it was not forcibly overcome by MfD. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does this project actually do? Find articles that need to be unprotected and get them unprotected? An editor can just request at RFPP. If there are problems with a protection, discussing with the protecting admin or taking the case to a noticeboard is the correct course of action. This just seems useless, so it should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What noticeboard would it be taken to? WP:ANI blows, and WP:RFPP explicitly says it is not for disputed protections. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With that rationale, we should delete Recent changes patrol because all it does is find vandals that need to be blocked and report them to WP:AIV. A project page helps to increase awareness of the problem, tell users how to solve it and co-ordinate ways of tackling it. Hut 8.5 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a unique idea that is separate from WP:RFPP. Lets admit it - its a lot more common to protect a page than it is to unprotect it.  There are articles that get left behind that are protected long after the protection is actually needed.  This is more like WP:TYPO than anything else.  This project is simply a clearing house for helping to alert administrators to pages that don't need protection anymore, thus keeping Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit. -->Please feel free to check my user page and talk archives.  I don't look for trouble or invest in things just to make a point.  This is a good idea and I stand behind it. --mboverload @  06:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I say we must give it time. It is an idea with merit. Is only a week or so old, give it time and either let it run its short course till it dies out OR see it develop and mature further when it will be easier to judge its ultimate worth. Mathmo Talk 04:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An interesting idea. I look forward to seeing where it might lead. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is basically a policy dispute.  MfD is not a forum for policy, including debating how things would be better done.  Even if this idea turns out to be a complete waste of time, we tag it, archive it somehow, but keep it available, not delete it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how you perceive this to be "basically a policy dispute"? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's about management/review of an internal administrative function. It reminds the nominator of past proposals.  It is related to policy, and people are arguing about whether it is a good idea.  Do you question whether it is a policy page (in a broad meaning of the term), or if it is a dispute?  As a policy related page, its future is for it to be used, or archived, or redirected as per consensus, which should be resolved on the talk page, not here.  In general, we don't delete such things anyway, even if the talk page consensus was that it was utterly a mistake.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. I hate to delete people's projects, but this seems like classic bureaucracy. All this time spent on writing the page, discussing it on the talk page, recruiting people, fending off the MFD... for what? I see no evidence it's lead to a single good unprotection yet. What's more, any editor (even an IP) can look around for pages that have been protected for too long, and get them unprotected... no need to join a support group and discuss for hours before doing a single unprotection. Projects like this just seem to exponentially increase the amount of time people supposedly spend doing cleanup, yet reduce the results to... nil, in this case. --Rividian (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, an interesting idea, but to be honest a useless page. I mean I can and do go through Special/Protected pages and unprotect those that are in need of unprotection, and those that I or other administrators miss can be listed at RFPP under "Current requests for unprotection". Does this mean I disagree with editors whom take it upon themselves to look for and find pages in need of unprotection? No, I just see no need for a whole project page on it, all it causes is useless levels of bureaucracy. And as such, the page itself should be deleted. Tiptoety  talk 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't ask MfD to offer an opinion of this project. We were doing our own thing, brainstorming some ways of addressing page protection issues, when you guys decided to butt in and try to shut it down. It would have been better to have left well-enough alone. But MfD's raison d'etre is interfering where it's not welcome, so I guess this is to be expected. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep an interesting idea. I'd rather it was written in a similar way to New page patrol (which doesn't have any "nominations") but the problem of pages being indefinitely full protected (often as the result of a dispute) and left to hang around is one that I've noticed before and some kind of project to tackle it would be a good thing. Hut 8.5 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be bold and change it. In reference to the nominations section, that was an attempt to address a certain void that currently exists. There is a home for aggregated discussions of disputed deletions of new articles (actually, multiple homes: WP:AFD, WP:DRV, etc.) but not for disputed page protections. Imagine what it would be like if all page deletion disputes had to go to WP:ANI. It would be a mess; and that's the situation we're in with page protections. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rividian. Except in special cases (e.g. ArbCom decisions, BLP controversies), a request for unprotection can be made by any user, to any administrator, at any venue known to be watched by at least one administrator (administrator's talk page, article talk page, WikiProject talk page, WP:RFPP, WP:AN, WP:AN/I). There is no reason to over-complicate matters by extensively discussing protections and unprotections or by forming a WikiProject dedicated to this. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the bureaucracy could stand some trimming and it should try to be incorporated more into existing processes (the nominations section is redundant to RFPP's Requests for Unprotection), it seems like a good idea. I don't see what harm will come of it. Mr.Z-man 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above comments. ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 23:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was thinking of MfDing this myself and Rividian and Black Falcon are quite right. Also, I think at this stage in the project's life, and where we already have a bloated projectspace, new proposalythings like this should be made only when there's a clear and immediate problem that can't be solved otherwise. I just don't see that here. – Steel 15:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.