Wikipedia talk:Non-admin protection

I actually find this is a really good suggestion. A lot of the time protection can be overkill as most parties are rational enough to agree to a cease-fire. Although I think a problem with it is that most people engaging in an editing war don't engage in rational discourse until after the page is protected and there's no other real option. In cases when they do it seems like a pretty sensible idea. Sarge Baldy 02:14, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's the hope. V V 05:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea, but hate the tag name &mdash; the last thing we need is more bizarre jargon. I'm not sure what is better, but I might suggest something like or. Deco 18:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I propose to place this proposal to a vote. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voting
Moved to Non-admin protection/Vote
 * I like It, Too bad i missed the Poll--E-Bod 04:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy?
How is this a suggestion for a new policy? This has absolutely nothing to do with administrating anything; in fact, the whole idea revolves around a move away from administrative policy and into utilizing a more civil solution. I don't think VeryVerily was suggesting this to be a policy, and, in fact, when voting took place over it he had not been present on Wikipedia for some time. It only became a policy suggestion when AllyUnion put forth a vote on it; prior to that it was an unofficial means for not having to resort to official policy. This is a vote which, for the record, I see making about as much sense as attempting to pass legislation to create an anarchy. Having not been intended to be a policy at all I have retracted this from "Wikipedia rejected policies" and placed it back into "Wikipedia dispute resolution" (where other related non-policy measures have been relocated, including Truce). I don't see that there was a failed vote on the suggestion as meaning anything, since it was never intended for a vote to begin with. I'm not attempting in anyway to create an "edit war", and will, if people feel otherwise, be happy to further contest the matter. Sarge Baldy 18:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems a reasonable practice and message, what is so wrong about this that it should be considered historic, and the template should not exist? --Mysidia (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I'm all for reviving it. This was never intended as official policy, and I see no reason to prevent users from using it. Sarge Baldy 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I dislike this proposal because it involves yet another housekeeping template for articles themselves. We already have too many. There is nothing about this technique that cannot be accomplished better on talk pages of the affected article or the talk pages of the users involved. Finally, there are often more than two editors involved in a page, and there is no reason other editors should have to discontinue participation. This proposal predates the 3RR, which is another means of addressing the same problem. Finally, the idea with protection is that it is supposed to be applied by an editor uninvolved in the topic, while this proposal seems to support "pseudoprotection" to be applied by those involved directly in an edit war. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 07:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)