Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 10

Disputed: Admins are allowed revert to prior edit-warring free version
has removed the following sentence from the policy regarding protection in cases of edit-warring:
 * Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

This sentence was added by in September 2008 in reflection of common practice. Archaid d00d removed it based on an old discussion from May 2008 of what he thinks is consensus. I disagree with this assertion because I think the latter change and the fact that it has been in the policy unchallenged since then reflects consensus at least since that time. As the user is unwilling to discuss the changes first, I want to use this to request further input as to whether this sentence should be part of the policy. See also this discussion on my talk page. Regards  So Why  11:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact it remained unchallenged (according to Wikiblame) for almost a year means that some sort of consensus exists. I however find it peculiar that such bold phrasing remained here for so long (I expected it to be a non-written practice). My own opinion is that admins should be very careful if reverting -especially in article space- however they should trust their judgment if the current version is clearly not the version that had consensus before the edit war started. -- Luk  talk 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This absolutely is common practice, and I do this occasionally. For example when an edit warrior requests page protection at WP:RFPP, conveniently when his revision is current, I sometimes rollback the warrior and then protect the page. However, I don't think it's necessary to have this explicitly authorized in the policy this way, and I don't like the prescriptive language. It should be something more like this:
 * When protecting due to content disputes, consider reverting to a stable revision prior to the dispute.
 * --causa sui talk 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed the sentence is because the archives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_8#Protecting_the_current_version_rewards_revert_warriors showed a very clear consensus against giving admins discretion.
 * I think the reason this sentence lasted so long is because people read it from the perspective of the previous sentence, (about BPL, vandalism etc) and interpreted it to mean admins could choose a stable point before hand if such things are clearly present. Since silence is the weakest form of consensus and such a strong consensus was shown previously I reverted.
 * 1.Admins should have no discretion, apart from the obvious exceptions, as per the overwhelming thrust of wiki policy.
 * 2.When does an edit war "clearly" begin? With an edit that will be reverted? Or when that edit is reverted? If multiple editors are involved does that obscure such a point? Do unrelated edits during the period that admin has deemed to be in the edit war obscure such a clear point?
 * 3.It cannot be assumed that stable pre-edit war versions reflect current consensus, assume that a new event occurs that is notable enough for inclusion (in terms of the consensus), like Usain Bolt makes a new 100m record. Some people believe he cheated, so an edit war ensues, then the admin sweeps in and reverts to the pre-edit war version in the belief that it better reflects consensus.
 * 4.The policy is open to abuse from editors. If an embarrassing and notable revelation about a politician occurs at an election time, staffers for the politician can just start an edit war and even if their version isn't the one preserved when the music stops have an added chance of reversion to a pre edit war version of events.
 * 5.As per point 2, I believe it's a judgement call to say when an edit war starts, but it's no doubt a judgement call about whether admins use the discretionary power that the word "may" gives them. This leaves the admin open to calls of bias, and can take the focus off building consensus in the talk page to arguing with the admin.
 * 6. If Admins have no (or very little) discretion, their decisions can be better accepted by users. Whenever they use discretion disgruntled users can call "bias", and whenever they don't the same thing could happen (if more people knew about this policy). It would make life easier for admins, and increase community acceptance if this policy did not exist. I agree maybe admins could wait a random length of time to protect, so that users can't wiki-lawyer their version preserved by tacitically requesting page protection, but that's the most discretion I believe in.
 * 7. I do however, believe, in one more exception. The initial reason for the inclusion of this policy was "common practise, especially on policy pages". I can see the merits of applying this policy to "policy pages", but instead of MAY it should be MUST.Archaic d00d (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These are old-hat arguments in favor of a prescriptive reading of policy. To take this point by point:
 * 1. The overwhelming thrust of Wikipedia policy is that everyone is to use common sense and critical thinking at all times. See WP:5, WP:POLICY and WP:IAR. The open nature of Wikpedia, that relies on the good-faith of its contributors, is what makes Wikipedia work-- not any firm set of rules. I assure you that the consensus on this is exactly the opposite of what you are proposing.
 * 2. It's much easier to determine this on a case-by-case basis than to try to come up with some clear bureaucratic definition. That's why we leave it up to the good-faith efforts of the protecting administrator to sort it out.
 * 3. That cannot be assumed, of course, but it can be determined by the administrator. Besides, protection is not an endorsement of the current revision.
 * 4. By its open nature, Wikipedia is open to abuse by anyone. Yet we seem to be doing pretty well. If you think someone did something wrong, you should challenge them by arguing that it harmed the project. Don't amend the rules to make them prescriptive. They aren't.
 * 5. Yes, there will always be argument about what the best thing to do is. We don't solve that problem by making a bureaucratic rulebook that does the thinking for us. In this case, the cure is worse than the disease.
 * 6. Users can accept the decisions of administrators because the administrators will say "Sorry, I don't make the rules, the rules forced my hand." How is that better than making administrators responsible for their actions? If you give administrators leeway, then you can challenge what they do. If you force their hands, then they will be required to do things against their better judgement and the victims of this slavish worship of bureaucratic rules will have no recourse. We give administrators discretion because it gives us an outlet for peer-reviewing their use of sysop tools.
 * 7. It is common practice and not just on policy pages.
 * --causa sui talk 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Old hat means an appeal to modernity, unconvincing.
 * 1. There are multiple overwhelming thrusts to wikipedia policy, so let's both be right. If an admin is applying critical thinking, why doesn't he/she simply CHOOSE the best version, it's the natural extension of what you are advocating.
 * 2. A case by case basis gives admins too much power, and infinite exposure to allegations of bad faith.
 * 3. It can't be assumed nor determined in many cases. Does the exclusion or inclusion of new, or newly added, information reflect waht the consensus would be? Who can know? Certianly noone who compares it to a "pre-edit war" version. IF admins could determine consensus, well then why don't they just choose the version? "Besides, protection is not an endorsement of the current revision." Seems to me that protection is an endorsement, if the admin determines what consensus was and reverts to it.
 * 4. I'm challenging this one, and I think admins are being prescriptive with this policy.
 * 5. The cure is worse than the disease? The disease is edit warring (and not the type severe enough to be blocked), and the cure is admins having power to choose versions, and other editors an ability to temporarily censor wiki. I think the cure is worse.
 * 6. Yes, because admins are just other editors with some powers. It's "no big deal" remember? If we enable admins to use their "better judgement" we will have the rule of admins and not the rule of policy. There is recourse, change the policy.
 * 7. Well, it had stiff opposition in the archives. But I can see the merits of a specific policy exmemption.Archaic d00d (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a referendum on the open, non-prescriptive nature of Wikipedia policy, you should be starting that on WP:VPP and the talk pages for WP:POLICY, WP:NOT and so on. I'm sorry but you cannot make this kind of policy change here, given the overwhelming and long-standing consensus behind it all the way back to Jimbo's statement of principles and the first rules to consider. We get lots of arguments from people who think that Wikipedia rules should be made more bureaucratic and constraining and they're shot down nearly every time, with good reason. I appreciate that you have good intentions but I would strongly urge you to try to understand the logic behind why we do it this way and not that way. --causa sui talk 23:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Atleast we aren't having 7 points of disagreement. I'm not against wikipedia being non-prescritpive. I am simply opposed to admins having the power to determine consensus, choose versions etc or the idea of making a page protected is some kind of endorsement. Sure wikipedia is doing pretty well, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't argue with something I disagree with. Have a look at this for me, if you wouldn't mind, and you'll see that there seemed to be a consensus pretty much agreeing with what I just said.Archaic d00d (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are some plausible arguments here for why an administrator should avoid doing this. I wouldn't object to putting something about the rationale for why it should be avoided into the article. What I don't want to see is a commandment. --causa sui talk 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ryan Delaney is on the right track. In general, admins having the power to choose a revision to protect is dangerous, since it can be used badly. Even the suggestion of impropriety is damaging. Now, it shouldn't be arbitrarily denied: there are situations where it might be useful. I ask you to consider rules-ignoring. Admins do have a certain amount of rule-ignoring power in admin actions in the way that all users have that power for other actions, but they are held to higher standards, and every action can be challenged (so admins don't "rule"). Most of the time, admins should be following the good practice of not changing the protected revision, though. Since most of the time admins should follow the good practice, the policy shouldn't encourage or otherwise endorse those actions, but it also must not prohibit them. { { Nihiltres | talk | edits} } 03:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (iPod edit)
 * I agree, of course, and I think this is really key. For some reason, a lot of people look at WP:IAR and they only read the part that says "ignore the rules" and they somehow miss the part that says "if the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia." "Ignore all rules" does not mean "Do whatever you want!" or give anyone license to run around willy-nilly. It only means you can do the right thing even if the rules try to tell you that you can't. It doesn't mean that no-one can challenge those actions on the basis of whether they actually did improve the encyclopedia or not. Since an accountability system without firm rules allows us to challenge every single use of sysop rights, and the administrators had better be ready with an explanation for why what they did helped the project, there's no reason to rely on firm rules. --causa sui talk 03:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarity section break
An uninterested party reverting to a pre-war version is never a worse principle than randomly protecting whatever current version, but is often better.

The objections above are equally objections to random protection, except one: an admin, the person who decides to lock the page, also decides to revert to some revision. That is irrelevant: the protecting admin could arbitrarily choose a user on Recent Changes, and still yield better results than leaving the random current version. It might as well be the admin, who is already doing the protection, who is no worse than an arbitrary Recent-Changes user, and who should already be an uninvolved party. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that reverting to a pre-war version is never worse in principle and have provided some examples, mostly pertaining to the release of new information (that is notable enough for inclusion). If there is a policy that admins can, or should, revert to pre-war versions then it's easy for editors to game wikipedia to keep the information out for a length of time. It's also hard to say exactly when an edit war starts, and should unrelated edits down in the edit war's time period be arbitrarily overwritten?Archaic d00d (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * New information in an edit war will be randomly included or excluded by the random protection. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that the open nature of the policy leaves the door open for bad-faith editing by administrators. This is both true and false. It's true in the sense that the policy isn't prescriptive and so administrators can -- in fact, are expected to -- use their judgement at all times. (This isn't a problem because we don't have any bad faith administrators.) On the other hand, it's also false, and this is the most important point: if an administrator does something bad, you can always challenge it on the grounds that what they did harmed the project. You don't have to be able to cite some policy the administrator "violated" in order to do this. Ignore all rules is a two-sided coin: Just like it's possible to do the right thing despite the appearance that some rule forbids it, it's possible to do a wrong thing despite there being no rule against it. There is nothing stopping you from challenging any use of sysop rights, and there's nothing stopping another administrator from reversing it if he or she finds your good-faith rationale that it damaged the project to be convincing, whether it actually violated some policy somewhere or not. So why is there all this obsession with making the rules prescriptive? It doesn't accomplish anything we didn't already have without firm rules, and it only creates barriers to doing the right thing in those rare cases where policy conflicts with best practices. --causa sui talk 08:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems very idealistic to me. In practice I doubt you'd get very far with a complaint against an admin (or a request to other admins to undo his actions) if he acted within the letter and spirit of the rules. We ought to say explicitly in the rules that admins can and should use their discretion when deciding which version of a page to protect. Particularly if the subject has been the subject of past consensus. In other cases I don't think there can be any universal objective test that can't be manipulated in the sort of way Ad00d describes (certainly "protect the existing version" is clearly wrong if we want to discourage people from editwarring) - admins have to get their hands (or rather their brains) dirty and think a bit.--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "complaint". The complaint should be against the action, not the admin who undertook it: if an action is detrimental to the project, any admin is within the "letter and spirit of the rules" to undo it, without any prejudice on the original admin.  You wouldn't get very far in launching a complaint against the original admin, but that's not the point.  We already do say very clearly that admin discression is allowed and encouraged.  The way to avoid people gaming the system is to avoid giving them prescriptive rules to game, and rely on the application of Common Sense. Happy‑melon 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with all of that except "we say very clearly". It isn't at all clear, even to admins themselves, that they are allowed and encouraged to use judgement in this situation. (Note how they sometimes smugly announce that they are protecting The Wrong Version - meaning "I don't care what's right, and I'm right not to care what's right.")--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that we give one "very clear" message at WP:IAR and then try to water it down on pages like this, which is the source of the confusion. Happy‑melon 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is idealistic. So is the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Both work, and have worked, since the very beginning here. You are absolutely right that it would be difficult to make an objection to a use of sysop rights that was within the letter and spirit of the rules, and that is an excellent argument against having rules. --causa sui talk 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: IMO the removed bit of policy merely clarified how WP:IAR is sometimes used in this context, reflecting practice. It's probably better to be clear about that: admins sometimes can and do revert to a stable pre-edit war version rather than merely leaving whatever's current, if that's in the interest of the encyclopedia's readers. That seems perfectly sensible: admins shouldn't have prior involvement with the issue, so we'll trust their judgement enough to say that if they think it necessary, they are allowed to revert to a prior version. Remember that such action is only temporary, whilst the matter is resolved on the talk page - it shouldn't (but inevitably sometimes does) prejudice the outcome of that discussion. However, it would probably be helpful to expand that policy bit slightly, warning admins only to do this if it really seems necessary. Reference to prior consensus might help clarify the intent. Example: Administrators may also revert to a version of the page pre-dating the edit war if a prior consensus exists, especially if insufficient discussion has taken place over major changes. However this is not the norm and editors asking for page protection because they believe their version is the consensus version should not expect that version to be protected. Administrators should balance the benefit to readers of reverting to a prior consensus version against the harm this may do to discussion about changes. Explaining any such action on the talk page is highly advised. Where a prior version is reverted to, this should not prejudice discussion about changes. Rd232 talk 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we need something like this. I'm not sure about the second sentence though - it seems to give an admin the right to ignore past consensus if they feel like it, which is a discretion they should certainly not have. Nor do I see how "reverting to a prior consensus version" might be expected to do harm to discussion about changes (I probably will if you explain what you mean). And factors other than past consensus need to be mentioned too.--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean about the second sentence - it doesn't say anything about admin rights, it's addressed to editors asking for protection. Reverting to a prior consensus version can harm a discussion because some editors may be influenced by such judgement on what the consensus was, and may also feel that this means changes are being discouraged. Particularly for newbies it's hard to avoid that impression I think, so some care is called for. What factors other than past consensus need to be mentioned? (Don't forget the context of the para this issue is in - it mentions eg BLP issues in the first sentence of that para.) Rd232 talk 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * About the second sentence, saying "this is not the norm" and "editors should not expect" sounds like words that an admin might fling back in an editor's face if the admin doesn't feel like looking into the claim of past consensus. Obviously just believing something doesn't enable you to expect others to automatically take your word for it, so I consider the sentence redundant. About the third/fourth sentences, I would rather say something like this: "when reverting to a prior consensus version, the admininstrator should make it clear on the talk page that this is not a final decision, and that discussion of proposed changes to that version is encouraged to continue". It seems to be not so much a need for balance as a need to clarify what's being done.--Kotniski (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is there is too much legal jargon that creates the impression that it's making pronouncements and authorizations. The problem with making the policy constraining is that, as showed above, every time you think you are forbidding something bad, you are also authorizing something that might also be bad. Leaving out the lawspeak means you aren't authorizing anything and so the administrator will never be able to hide under policy to justify doing something stupid, even if it appeared to be authorized by policy. Try this:
 * When protecting a page that has been the topic of severe edit warring, consider reverting to a stable version prior to the dispute .
 * --causa sui talk 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to obscure policy by refocussing it as a guideline for admins. What "legal jargon" are you referring to? Rd232 talk 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "guideline for admins" exactly. --causa sui talk 18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about it, and I think I get what you're saying. You want to emphasize the priority of policy over guideline, I think as explained on WP:POLICY: "Our policies are considered standards that should be followed, whereas our guidelines are more advisory in nature." Yes, I think that I want the policy to be advisory rather than a standard to be followed on this issue. Here, compare these two questions:
 * Should administrators use page protection to establish their preferred revision in a content dispute in which they are a party?
 * Should administrators use page protection to restore a stable or consensus revision in a content dispute in which they are not a party?
 * One of those questions is very easy and is very much "a standard that should be followed". The other isn't, and it's something that we need to let administrators decide for themselves on a case by case basis. It's highly problematic, and besides it's unnecessary, to answer question #2 with the same force as we answer question #1. --causa sui talk 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er no that's not what I meant at all. I just meant that instead of being written as something addressed to everyone ("this is what may happen / what admins may do") it's addressed to admins ("this is what you should think about"). Also for the two questions you raise, 1 is entirely straightforward (don't abuse admin tools), while the latter is what we're talking about - almost. The question hasn't (until now) been "should admins restore a consensus version", but "should admins be permitted to restore a consensus version if they think it's appropriate" (and if so how should that be phrased in protection policy). Rd232 talk 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused again. Is there some case where an administrator should do X, but should not be allowed to do X? --causa sui talk 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, I think you need to go to bed or something. It's pretty clearly the difference between saying "Admins should generally/always restore a consensus version" and "Admins are allowed to restore a consensus verion but don't have to". Rd232 talk 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to discuss this, so long as we can be polite about it. --causa sui talk 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I should have put a smiley face, I just meant it was hard to understand your misunderstanding. Rd232 talk 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. If you put it that way, I definitely prefer the second version, if I had to pick between the two. --causa sui talk 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I wasn't proposing them as alternatives. I thought we were talking about the latter idea, and exactly how to phrase that, and suddenly the former idea popped up, which confused me. Some miscommunication here, which I think started with my initial throwaway "guideline" remark. Sorry. Rd232 talk 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, problem is, the more discretion you give an admin, the more the admin automatically does become a party to the dispute by protecting a particular version. That's presumably why we have this "protect the current version" concept. However, that concept is seriously flawed (it rewards edit warring), and thus we need to find something better. But the something better we find must make it quite clear what the role of the admin is - and it has to be something like the role of the admin closing an AfD discussion. I.e. the admin is bound by consensus - that's absolutely fundamental - but may have to use delicate judgement to decide what consensus is.--Kotniski (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the one hand yes, there's a similarity to closing AfDs. On the other hand, an AfD outcome is a lot more lasting as a decision; version displayed whilst page is protected for purposes of discussion is inherently temporary. I think we shouldn't actively encourage admins to do this (identify a prior consensus version), but it's very reasonable to explicitly permit it (where the admin is uninvolved, obviously - that goes without saying, since involved admins shouldn't be doing page protection). And because of the temporariness of it, as long as the admin is uninvolved, it doesn't matter that much whether they make the right call, because it's only temporary anyway. Rd232 talk 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some problems I'd like addressed in any proposal :
 * A pre-existing consensus is meaningless when new information is added, so how do admins decide in that case?
 * If admins are allowed to roll back (or change current version), what happens to unrelated good faith edits on the article in that time period?
 * How much more powerful than an editor should an admin be? and why?Archaic d00d (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These are certainly difficult and complex questions that need discussing. In the special case where there was prior consensus that is still relevant, I disagree with Rd's view - mine is that consensus is the foundation for our decision making, and it is absolutely unacceptable for an admin to fail to uphold it when it exists. Those special cases where such prior consensus exists should be the easy ones - those where it doesn't, as noted by Archaic, are more problematic and need more thought.--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) - so to clarify, you think admins should be required to uphold prior consensus when imposing page protection? That's a defensible position but it's a much more radical change than what, until now, we were discussing here, which was explicitly permitting admins to do that, if they thought it necessary, as opposed to implicitly permitting it (via WP:IAR). As to your final thought - where prior consensus can't reasonably be construed, admins should only act if there is an issue relating BLP, libel, etc (which the policy already says). Rd232 talk 08:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in answer to your first question, yes, and I think it's more than just defensible, it's absolutely fundamental. And to your second point, no, I still disagree. Admins must act - page protection itself is an act - and having a principle that they should always protect whatever version they find on top, while superficially attractive, is obviously (when you think about it) a reward for aggressive edit warriors. I'm not saying there are easy answers, but we must do better than that.--Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but that's a conversation for another day (or at least another section). Make a proposal for that if you like. Rd232 talk 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
 * "A pre-existing consensus is meaningless when new information is added" - no, that's precisely when it's meaningful: if there's an edit war about new information, it needs more discussion before being added.
 * Unrelated good faith edits are a problem, which is one reason why this shouldn't be the norm (but there are solutions, eg putting a diff on the talk page so they can be re-added later)
 * We're only talking about reverting to a prior version
 * Admins should only be doing this if they're uninvolved, and the reason for letting them do this (as opposed to encouraging or requiring) when dealing with an edit war by imposing protection is that sometimes it's clearly in the interests of the readers to have a prior stable version, rather than a current disputed proposal. Rd232 talk 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been mulling over this, and I'm starting to think that maybe the best solution is to just say nothing about it either way. Would this satisfy everyone? --causa sui talk 02:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really; it would give the impression that admins can do whatever they damn well like. So (a) a small minority of them might actually start doing what they damn well like; (b) the majority of them, acting in good faith, would have nothing to point to in justification of what they've done, thus giving the appearance to involved editors that they are just doing what they damn well like.--Kotniski (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I think it's better to briefly say it's discouraged but that sometimes it's necessary in the interests of the readers (or words to that effect). And again, even if they replace the current version with "la la la you're a bunch of edit-warring muppets", this is only temporary until either (a) discussion concludes or (b) somebody complains and gets an egregious error or abuse overturned. Rd232 talk 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (B) is really the biggest problem here because it's so manifestly false. (This is surreal.) They would have nothing to point to to justify their actions? How about a rationale for why it helped the project? I wonder if this is just so blindingly obvious that people can't see it right in front of their faces. --causa sui talk 10:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They would have nothing explicitly written in policy to point to. WP:IAR is a problematic fallback, frequently misunderstood by newbies. It can easily create an appearance of arbitrariness; having some written, agreed guidance avoids that. Rd232 talk 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about appealing to IAR. I'm saying that if someone wants to know why you did something, it's better to explain to them why, rather than saying "Policy says I can do it, and that settles it." Prescriptive policy is a thought terminating cliche, and that's why WP:POLICY, WP:5 etc are so abundantly clear that policy is not prescriptive. --causa sui talk 10:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but people don't see it that way. If policy were completely non-prescriptive, we wouldn't call it policy, and we wouldn't be having this sort of discussion - proposals to change the way we do things would be made in other forms than proposals to change the wording of policy/guideline pages. (I agree that would be much better, but saying it's true doesn't make it true.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a big misunderstanding about what all this means. For some reason people here seem to think that if policy isn't prescriptive then that means that you can do whatever you want. Obviously, nobody is in favor of that. I'd rather focus on my other point for now, since it's less reliant on technical vocabulary that we don't have clearly defined for the purposes of this conversation. --causa sui talk 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two serious problems here: one is that the best version before the dispute may go back very far indeed. It might apply if there was a recent dispute--but some articles have been disputed for years. More important, no two admins will see this the same way, and it's going to start depending on who gets there first. that is of course one way to settle conflict disputes, sort of like the situation at AfD.  On the other hand, if we protect after something horrible was done, which is usually the case, it depends how soon we get there--if we get there fast, the bad version will be the one left standing. If we get there later, someone will change it to the better. Frankly, I've sometime been just a little slow to respond to requests for this very reason. If we're going to make it flexible, we need better guidelines than the ones now in the policy after the edit war over it. "When it helps the project" is a bad rule, since that's just where the disagreement usually is in a reasonably good faith content dispute.   DGG (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? I proposed a more concrete set of guidelines below on this page, but people seem to recoil in horror at the suggestion that admins should follow any kind of system. (The theory is that if they act randomly then that will be "fair" to all sides, but I can't agree with that - firstly because it's evidently "fairer" to the side that edit warred the most, and edit warring is not something we want to encourage with such rewards; and secondly because there's no way of knowing how randomly the admin really did act - as you say, the admin might well have been waiting until a particular version was on top before protecting.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We need fewer guidelines, not more, since we cannot predict every eventuality here. The idea that we need to prescribe rules is rather arrogant IMHO, implying that we can somehow know better what to do here on the policy page with our crystal balls than admins in the field. ⟳ ausa کui × 11:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is that way of looking at it, but on the other hand, if admins are given no guidance, they won't know what criteria they're expected to apply, leading to a lot of acrimonious debate between admins trying hard to do the right thing and users accusing them of overstepping (or understepping) their authority. Anyway, we seem to be starting to repeat the last debate, so unless anyone has any concrete new proposals, there probably isn't much point in carrying on at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidance is one thing. Rules are a completely different animal. ⟳ ausa کui × 08:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Common sense request
I think this line needs to be more strongly worded:

"Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute."

I believe it should say this.

"Administrators should never, under any circumstances, fully protect a page which they have edited even once either on the talk page or the mainspace. They should go through the request channels used by regular users."

I was involved in a dispute with an admin who thought that I was wrong and reverted my changes and fully protected the article to her version until she was convinced I was right. It was condescending. It was an incredible abuse of power. It was wrong. It made me feel like a worthless pile of dirt. Admins should never, ever, do that. Wrad (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, maybe the admin did wrong in that situation, maybe not, but I don't think we can lay down a categorical rule like you propose. It would tie admins' hands too much in some cases, most obviously when they're battling vandalism.--Kotniski (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think it would be a little unreasonable to expect an administrator to examine thousands of edits on an article before they fully protect the article to see if at one time they may have fixed a typo or added a sentence. The case you cite is an example of a blatant abuse of power even as the policy is currently worded, and I agree that as you portray it, admins should never, ever do that. That does not mean, however, that an admin who happened to have edited a page in the past, but is not a party to the current content dispute over which other users are edit warring should be barred from protecting that page. If the admin is involved in the dispute, they should never take any administrative action. That applies to blocks, page protections, deletions, etc. and is a commonly held norm on Wikipedia. The proposed strengthening of the policy would bring this to an insane level as an administrator who fixed a typo on a page three years ago would be barred from protecting the page even if they have absolutely no connection to the dispute. I think the current wording is completely sufficient to protect against what an admin put you through, as the admin in question was undoubtedly in violation of policy (assuming all of the relevant information is provided above; can't comment on that as I cannot investigate the particular case with the information provided) but if you insist on strengthening the wording, I would say:
 * "An administrator should never fully protect an article if they are involved in a content dispute on that article or have expressed their opinion regarding the content dispute on that article. Administrators should also avoid fully protecting articles when the article is subject to a content dispute which involve users they are involved with in disputes elsewhere on Wikipedia."
 * I just believe the proposed wording you provide above not only doesn't address the problem you have experienced but also would place an incredible amount of burden on any administrator responding to a request for page protection. The   Seeker 4   Talk  14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just think it should be very clear that it is wrong to revert and then fully protect an article if you're an admin. That's exactly what this admin did. She said "I don't agree with these edits", reverted, and then fully protected. What power do I have, as a regular, editor of Wikipedia, against such steamrolling? I tried to get help afterwards and everyone just told me to calm down, rather than doing anything against the admin. I had to call in an RfC and get tons of opinions on my side before the almighty admin finally swallowed the pill and unprotected it. I think your rewording is fair. I think I would add this at the end, though, In these cases, admins should go through the request channels used by regular users. Wrad (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a more concise wording would be:
 * "An administrator should never fully protect an article if they are involved in a content dispute on that article, have expressed their opinion regarding a content dispute on that article, or when the article is subject to a content dispute which involves users they are involved with in disputes elsewhere on Wikipedia."
 * It's already well known that admins shouldn't be reverting and then protecting unless it's a BLP issue or some other sort of blatant vandalism (as opposed to a content dispute), so there's no reason to include anything about that. As for the "in these cases", that's already a given. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So why didn't anybody point that out to this admin? I'm not sure it's as well known as you think. Where were all the the people who knew about this when I had a problem? The user who did this is still an admin and still causes problems. Wrad (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is hard for anyone to comment about the specific case you were involved in unless you provide links to what actually happened in that case. If you would rather not reveal this information that is perfectly fine, you have no obligation to do so, but understand that no one can comment specifically about your experience without actually being able to investigate what your experience was. Additionally, I support Nihonjoe's version, more concise than mine :-) The   Seeker 4   Talk  19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand. I think your suggestions for rewording are great. That's about all I can expect, I guess. Wrad (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. This language is too specific, and that will lead to instruction creep. Please do not implement this change without consensus. ⟳ ausa کui × 00:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is why we're having this discussion after all: to gain consensus. No one said anything about throwing it in without that consensus. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it. :-) ⟳ ausa کui × 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well maybe if some admins weren't knuckleheads we wouldn't need this. There's a good rule. If you're an admin, don't be a knucklehead. Wrad (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, I can get behind that one. :-) Unfortunately, no matter how strongly you word the rules or how specific you make them, some admins will always, at least occasionally, act like idiots. There's nothing to do about it except clean up after them. ⟳ ausa کui × 04:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current working is fine; it's a catch-all. The other examples I see are way too wordy and too specific. And it would appear to indicate a perpetual ban on an admin protecting an article they have ever had an opinion on. If an admin had a content dispute that was settled last year, I wouldn't consider them to be biased or in a dispute right now. I also wouldn't consider expressing an opinion to make someone unbiased. You can express an opinion and still uphold policy (this is why I like the protect the current version only argument). As long as they haven't participated in the content dispute on the article, then I'd say they can still do their job just fine. Otherwise we've reduced admins to blind justices who's only job is to patrol policy violations instead of them being editors with a couple extra jobs and responsibilities (that's what we are). -Royalguard11 (T) 21:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current version is fine - it's short and clear. Of course it's sometimes ignored or not enforced, but fiddling with the policy won't change that. It might be useful though to add a sentence after the current one, to say something like "Possible violations of this should be reported to WP:AN." Disembrangler (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Legality of locking pages
I'm wondering where the copyright laws and the licensing comes into play in this matter. It is my understanding (albeit my understanding is limited) that all articles on Wikipedia are licensed under the GFDL which is a public domains license. Therefore, the abilities administrators have to lock, edit, and delete pages strikes me as being contrary to those licenses. I assume that this isn't the case, yet I would like to know the rationale behind this policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danemmason (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the license. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses mean you can make your own derivative works. That does not entitle you under any circumstances to edit Wikipedia itself. Page protection is not stopping you from say, copying the content to your own website and making your own derivative (with attibution etc). -- ⟳ ausa کui × 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, GFDL is not a public domain license as it requires attribution and linking to the full text of the GFDL licensing document itself. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Full protection on userpages
The policy says user pages should never be fully protected unless the user is dead. Why? لenna vecia  13:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably stems from the anyone-can-edit principle. imo, admins shouldn't lock their userpage down without some kind of protracted disruption from autoconfirmed users. –xenotalk 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with xeno. Move-protection is fine (user pages rarely need to be moved). However, the default for editing pages should always be open. If there's heavy vandalism, finite semi-protection or full-protection is fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean user pages, or user talk pages? Also, it only says user pages cannot be fully protected at the user's request. Some user pages, e.g. vandals, are protected because the user abuses them, not because of a request. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why fully protect a dead user's page? I suppose 'in memoriam' is probably the understandable excuse, but I've never been very convinced by it. User pages generally need editing like anything else. They have typos, and fair-use images, and bots changing the categories, updating inconvenient links, people removing allegedly inappropriate content, deprecating templates, fixing bugs, making improvements, and more going on. Such edits shouldn't require an admin. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Full protection of user pages that are targets of persistent, serious vandalism (from autoconfirmed accounts) is routine - I see it on my watchlist on a regular basis, almost daily. I've added a bit to the policy page to address that, but haven't added anything about other forms of protection or protection for other reasons. Nathan  T 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Nathan's edit here reflects current practice and consensus. — Satori Son 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nathan. Makes more sense. Personally, I don't buy the argument from the Defender of the Wiki tagline. No one needs to be editing my userpage. Regardless, this new wording is a better representation of current practice. لenna  vecia  01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might need to read WP:OWN again. People can edit you userpage, but in practice people shouldn't unless they have a good reason (I worked with WP:GUS for a while and we had to edit userpages, non disruptively of course). The change to the written policy is good and reaffirms admin discretion in these situations, which is basically the underlying principle to the whole policy. -Royalguard11 (T) 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, it's not about OWN issues at all. I don't mind constructive or even attempts at constructive editing. What I do mind a lot is vandalism, and the needless work it takes to clean up after it. If the user page associated with my username (not mine :) were protected, I wouldn't mind someone making constructive edits to it. - Taxman Talk 12:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We do need to edit userpages occasionally. To bring this closer to intuition, consider cases of users who have fair-use images displayed in galleries on their userpage (or elsewhere in the userspace). This is a violation of United States copyright law, and so we do need to edit the user pages of people who do this. There are other examples, but the point is that since most people don't edit your user page anyway, we might as well not protect it. ⟳ ausa کui × 21:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good timing. I strongly disagree that userpages shouldn't be able to be protected. They're not articles so the everything should be able to be edited doesn't really apply. I think if someone doesn't have any non free images, etc on their page, they should be able to request that it be protected or protect it themselves. There is no benefit to Wikipedia to have so many user pages be vandalized so often and have so many people spend so much time watching them and reverting the vandalism. No one else needs to edit my userpage and there have been almost no constructive edits to it by someone else since I started with the project in 2003. People's time would be much better spent doing anything else to help the project rather than having to watch userpages for vandalism. Various admins' userpages have been protected for a long time and I believe all of them should be able to be. - Taxman Talk 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I will echo Taxman's views. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on priciple then, but even the userpage guidelines states 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. Userpages are not part of regular content, and therefore have a lower importance. If they are vandalized, it is up to the user or another friendly user to revert. It is not up to policy or any users to prescribe what any user should do during their time. Anyone can work on anything and put in as much time as they want. The day they change that is the day I'm done.
 * You mention admins too, and I agree. Admins shouldn't just be locking their userpages forever just because they can.
 * If you do want to change policy on editing of userpages then you need a larger consensus. This is not only a protection policy question, it also affects WP:OWN and WP:USER, along with the fundamental anyone can edit principle. You don't believe that applies to userspace, and that goes against the status quo. The onus is on you to show there is consensus to change that. Taxman, you're a 'crat. You know this isn't the right venue. A big change like this needs to be transparent, not hidden on some obscure policy talk page. -Royalguard11 (T) 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No silver padlock shown; Talk page semi-locked
The article about Keith Henson is semi-locked, but has no silver padlock on it. Also, even the Talk page is semi-locked and has no silver padlock on it. (semi-)locking Talk pages seems like a scary thing to do. But at least add the silver padlock image to both the article itself and the Talk page, so people (like me) know why we're unable to edit the pages and can only view their sources. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [redacted] --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the locking is temporary, for example because the servers are experiencing technical problems, the software should automatically add a silver padlock. Assuming that's possible, of course. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a note with the protecting admin and added the padlocks. Just FYI, the software does provide a note during database locks. –xenotalk 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuits
There is no mention of the lawsuit against Sanford Wallace Facebook sues 'Spamford' Wallace over spam scam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.119.61 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Preemptive protection fallacy
Actually, upon reading this page, I am concerned we have a logic flaw if the page states that we do not engage in preemptive protection when we plainly do in many cases - e.g. the image that appears in the DYK template on the main page, and many templates which are highly visible and often linked. I'd also make a case for BLPs where the page in question has not been vandalised yet but we become aware of a controversial real-life situation (court case, arrest or whatever) which suggests the page may be at high risk of vandalism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading the page too literally. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally we want to avoid protecting pages because "they might be vandalized." ⟳ ausa کui × 21:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps change the wording to:
 * "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is generally contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. (emphasis added)"
 * Thoughts? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. — <span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">Aitias // <span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">discussion  22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is no flaw, this is a general principle and should remain as is per our open nature. The exceptions for high risk images, templates and main page-related pages are documented in the policy. For exceptional cases, there is IAR. We could add 'generally' to any of our policy, but this doesn't make any more sense, and gives less strength. Cenarium (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cenarium. ⟳ ausa کui × 01:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Cenarium. The Main Page can't really be called a "normal page", as it and everything transcluded to the main page are always protected so that our front end looks good at least. Templates that are protected are under WP:HRT (most HRTs fall under technical reasons rather than policy). I don't know about preemptive protection for BLP pages, I don't recall the policy allowing for that (maybe I'm mistaken, BLP is a very far reaching policy and seems to label BLPs as a special class outside the regular rules, and in my opinion it gives way too many special privileges, but that's not the issue we're looking at). -Royalguard11 (T) 21:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The part about his exorcism seems dubious at best, they are all from the same source, which is obviously biased, even though it is in good faith. I might recommend striking that section since it also has no connection with any other part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.242.2 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We dont need pornography on wikipedia. Please remove inappropriate images ASAP to keep this site relevant and trustworthy. Where is everyone's common sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.118.13 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored and may contain images some people find offensive.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon IPs who blank the info about them on their talk page
Presumably with Anon IPs who deliberately keep blanking their talk page with all the notices about them being a school or similar doing a semi-protect on the talk page would be a good way forward? Seems to make sense, perhaps we should add it? --BozMo talk 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the blocked anonymous editor is removing one of the three things they are not allowed to remove from their own talk page (as per WP:BLANKING), the easiest thing to do would be to re-block him or her, but with the "allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked" box unchecked (as per WP:BLOCK). Not only is it faster than manually protecting the talk page, but then the admin can be sure that the page protection expires at the same time as the block.  — Kralizec! (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However for a school what you propose has the disadvantage of affecting other edits by that IP. If one user of a shared IP keeps doing one silly thing blocking the thing makes more sense than blcoking the IP. --BozMo talk 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Every day I see a few templates that were created with the protection template  in them. Which, of course, wil lead to an error message, because templates are not protected automatically any more than pages. Also, users often work on templates in their own userspace, where the template will obviously not be protected. Not taking this into account is another reason for error messages I see on a daily basis. Often, these two errors come together. In view of this, I'd like to add a small subsection to this article. I'd propose something along the following lines. Please feel free to make this text better.

Debresser (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been no comments here. In view of the continued necessity for such a warning, I'll post it. Debresser (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have copyedited the text today, removed the "especially in userspace", and added a sentence about the optimum placement of protection templates. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should incorrectly placed protection templates be allowed in user 'sandboxes'
Should incorrectly placed protection templates be allowed in user sandboxes which are clearly not for public consumption? Dpmuk (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is that I recently copy and pasted adminbacklog to a user subpage so that I could work on this protected template and propose a new (working) version to an admin. As such this page then included a protection template even though it was not actually protected. This template was then removed as being incorrectly placed. I feel that this should not have happened but may well have been within policy due to this section above where a change to this policy was proposed. The policy was then updated when no comments were forthcoming. In my opinion incorrectly placed templates should be allowed in user 'sandboxes' for two reasons:
 * a) They allow people to find out how the templates work - these templates aren't always (correctly) added or removed by admins and even new admins may wish to test them first.
 * b) To allow a working version of a page to be kept that can easily be copied and pasted back into the protected page without extra effort.

Additionally I feel that allowing this is in keeping with the purpose of user subpages and that as these templates are there to inform readers or editors about the protection status of a page then no harm is done by them being present on a user subpage that is clearly not for public consumption. Dpmuk (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be much ado about nothing. Why not just  or comment out the protection template while you work up the sandbox version? The reason it was removed from your page was to remove it from this maintenance category. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk  16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern isn't so much with the specific action in this case but rather the change in policy which was only supported by one user. I accept that the user made best efforts to get feedback on their propose change but it has by default been accepted and I disagree with it.  Personally I'd like to propose that pp-meta is changed so that user sub pages aren't added to that category (or are added to a seperate category) but I can't do so at the moment as it goes against policy.  As two editors are disagreeing on a policy we obviously need outside opinions.  I also have a real problem with any policy having large changes, such as this, made to it with only one editor commenting.  (As an aside I think that even if it is kept the section needs rewording to make it clearer). Dpmuk (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fixing pages in that maintenance category almost every day for the last half year now. In this time I have removed incorrectly placed protection templates from all possible pages, including several userpages a day. This is the first time an editor raises objections of a principal nature. I have been arguing with the above editor a little about this subject, and would like to repeat here my point of view that there is no reason to have a protection template in unprotected pages, including userpages. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone looking for pages that are protected should look at Special:Protectedpages and not Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages nor Category:Wikipedia protected pages anyways. The categories are helpful, but the Protectedpages is database generated I believe and should be more accurate. Is it suppose to be there? Technically no, but the template seems to have be modified to not even show if the page isn't protected anyways. -Royalguard11 (T) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me like the alternative is that the protection template may end up being dropped by mistake when updating a template. Yesterday I was trying to work out how to modify ANImove to allow it to link to a specific section of WP:ANI and subsequently to an archived section. As an admin, there was not going to be an extra layer of checking my work (a layer which may also miss this!) I believe that this proposal is a good one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
From the above it would seem that myself and one other editor (Od Mishehu) are for allowing misplaced protection templates in this instance, one isn't clear but seems to me to be leaning that way (Royalguard11) and one (xeno) feels it's much ado about nothing so presumably isn't too fussed either way. One editor (Debresser) opposes allowing misplaced templates in this case saying there is "no reason" to allow it but does not counter the reason I give (and is later also given by Od Mishehu). Their objection also seems to be largely based on the fact that such pages end up in a maintenance category. In light of this I propose removing the last section of the template section and adding a new section "Protection templates" with the following wording:

"Protection templates (i.e. those that indicate the protection level of a page, e.g. pp-vandalism) should only be applied to pages that are actually protected at that level. An exception to this rule is sub-pages in the User: namespace which are used as sandboxes and clearly not for public consumption [ref to this discussion]."

Accompanying this would be a change to the pp-meta template so it did not add pages to the maintenance category. If people are concerned that users may incorrectly place protection templates on pages that are sub-pages in the User: namespace but are not sandboxes then they could be placed in a different category on the understanding that the category shouldn't necessarily be empty. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Many people work on templates. Some do so in template namespace, others in userspace. Some of those might get protected, many will not. I find protection templates on templates and userpages that should never have them. I used to find them there after many months (before I worked through the backlog). Since protection templates are not what makes the protection, there is no reason to have them untill the template gets actually protected. At that moment they should be added by the protecting admin, or at any later moment to the unprotected documentation page. The proposal has no rationale or merit behind it, except for the appearent dislike of the editor pushing it of the fact that I touched his userpage. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you even read mine or Od Mishehu comments? You seem to be totally missing the point.  What I'm taking about (and I believe Od Mishehu is to) is when users are working on a new version in their user space of a template that is already protected in the main Template space.  When an admin updates this template in Template space with the new one from User space they will not be changing the protection level as it's already protected.  If the template has to be removed while the draft is in User space it is possible (or even likely) that the admin will forget to re-add it, after all they've not just changed the protection level of the page.  Additionally I've still yet to see any reason why you wish to disallow it, except for the fact it fills up a category (an issue that can be resolved) - I understand that you don't feel it is necessary but so far you've given no reason why you actually oppose it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. You're right I was, and still am, really unhappy with you editing my user page.  In my opinion that goes against the principle of how user pages are to be used.  However that is not the reason I'm pushing this.  I disagree with the change you made to policy, as it inconvenienced me, and as that was unilateral (I accept not for lack of trying) I feel there's no more reason for your version to be there than mine.  Hence my attempt to get outside views - there's something I disagree with and I now want to change it, you're actions merely notified me of the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If all you are talking about is users working on templates that are already protected, then first of all, they are likely to be experienced users, who won't forget to add a protection template. When laying the finishing touch to the template, before pasting it or putting the editprotected tag, that is when you add the appropriate protection template. And I already mentioned before, that there is no rule on Wikipedia that says that you must have a protection template on a protected page. So I really don't think you should be making all kinds of exceptions to simple guidelines and pp-meta for no good reason at all. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an admin above admitting that he was likely to forget to re-add it so I'm not sure how that arguement applies. What 'simple guideline' do you refer to?  As I state above I think not allowing it goes against our user page guidelines.  Dpmuk (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also notice that the only people who remove protection templates from unprotected pages are me and a certain unreliable bot, so if worst comes to worst, you can put it back. There once was such an editor. He put the protection template back after I had removed it, with edit summary "not so fast". Obviously I left his page alone, and after a few days he finished working on it and it was copied or protected. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If that admin is likely to forget the protection template, then first of all he should consider doing other necessary tasks on Wikipedia. :) But the main point is that even if he forgot to add the protection template, nothing is lost. It is not the template that makes the protection. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The simple guideline I am referring to says "don't put a template on a page if it has no business being there". Don't put Unsourced on an article with sources, and don't put a protection template on an unprotected page. No need for it. And no need for any exceptions to this rule. And I understand Xeno's point of view to be like mine in this. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link - I can't seem to find the guideline or policy with that in. Dpmuk (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Smiley.svg Debresser (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So does that mean there isn't one. There is a clear guideline at WP:USERPAGE that "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit."  Given that you can't seem to point me to a guideline, policy or even a consensus that indicates that incorrectly placed templates are not allowed in user space I think you're arguement that I'm proposing a change to the status quo holds no water - there isn't an accepted status quo.  I disagree that nothing in lost if the template is not added back in - readers and editors lose information.  You argue that not having the template on a protected page inconveniences no one but the exact same argument can be used about having the template on protected pages in user space (when these are not for public consumption).
 * Let me repeat here that you are the first editor in more than several hundred (by now), who feels that this is an infringement on his userspace. You are being very verbal about it, making this RfC and this proposal, but the fact is that most editors feel that this is regular housekeeping and nothing to get hung about. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) By your own admission above at least one other editor has objected. Additionally I suspect many (most) editors think your action is backed by policy without checking that it actually is.  Editors may also not be happy with your actions but think it not worth doing anything about it.  Taken together I'd suggest this the lack of comments can hardly be seen as support for your actions.  I'm still interested to find out what made you start removing these templates and what policy or guideline you use as justification.  Dpmuk (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are getting the facts wrong. He did not object to the fact of me editing in his userspace. He just informed me that he was working on something and that he would be done soon, without any general comments about his userspace. And that is fine with me, off course. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm more confused about where you're coming from - if you think it's OK sometimes why not all the time? I also don't object to you editing in my user space.  What I do object to is one editor deciding what I should be allowed there without any policy, guideline, or even consensus to back them up.  Although I understand (but disagree with) the arguments about instruction creep and unnecessarily complicating things I am still no closer to understanding why you fundamentally object to incorrectly placed protection templates in user space - what harm does it do the encyclopedia? Dpmuk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mind because I was sure that editor would remove it afterwards. He never wanted it to be there for more than the short time needed for him to prepare the template. And he was an admin who knew how to correctly apply protection. On the other hand there are many editors (including admins) out there who apply a protection template, and have no idea what they are doing: they think the protection template makes the protection; they use the wrong protection template; and in the end they forget about the protection template and it hangs on for months (sometimes even being transcluded on other pages). Some seem to think that any template must have a protection template, because that is what they saw on whatever template they looked to to mimic! That is why I (and a bot) make a daily round. Sometimes applying noinclude tags; sometimes replacing a mistaken protection template for the correct one; sometimes just deleting them; sometimes solving the problem by moving the protection template to a documentation page; or even other, more complicated, cases. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That all makes perfect sense for articles, or indeed any page that it is intended the public see. I would question the need for it given that the template shows nothing if the page isn't protected but if you want to do it I've no objection to it.  However I still don't see how any of your arguments apply to pages that aren't intended for public view.  It also smacks of penalizing those that do know what they're doing because some people don't and use them incorrectly.  It would also seem to me to be more civil to post a message on their talk page about the possible problem rather than automatically assuming that they don't know what they're doing and making changes to something they're working on.  I've still yet to see any justification in terms of policy, guidelines or consensus for removing protection templates (at all although I accept common sense applies on public pages) - even if you accept that the length of time you've been doing it gives the same process some legitimacy that can't have been the case when you started out.  Dpmuk (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't really care one way or another about protection templates in userspace, but I think this proposal just adds instruction creep. I think the new change actually makes sense and seems to be a reasonable compromise: In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates. Don't automatically assume that the template needs protection, but if one was already there then it's already protected. No, templates shouldn't be added to pages that aren't protected but they don't seem to show up anyways (and I believe there is a bot that removes them from non-protected pages). -Royalguard11 (T) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way assuming that templates automatically needs protection - I'm referring here mainly to working on new versions of templates that are protected, e.g. I was working on a new version of adminbacklog in my user space when the protection template was removed. I didn't assume this template needed protection I know it did as it already had it.  I'm also intrigued how you think my proposal is instruction creep but the addition Debresser made isn't - there both new instructions, just different instructions.  As stated above I'm also concerned that this goes against the consensus about the use of user pages.  Finally I don't think that edit is in any way a comprimise - it's exactly the same as what I and at least one other editor object to.  Not to mention that the new statement doesn't make sense to me "in view of this" implies what comes next follows automatically from what comes before and in my opinion it doesn't.  Comprimise to me would be to remove the last sentence and not have policy either way - there currently appears to be no consensus either way. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It just seems redundant to say "Only put protection templates on protected pages". It doesn't need to be said because it's common sense.
 * In my experience many editors don't have this specif "common sense". One of them is all over this discussion. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that you are referring to me and I find that comment uncivil and I ask that you please refrain from making personal attacks against me. We have different ideas of how to apply common sense (see my reply below) and given that people here have supported both our views I don't think either of us lack common sense.  Even when I've disagreed with you and struggled to understand your point of view I have not accused you of lacking common sense or attacked you in any way.  Please refrain from these sort of comments in future.  Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was indeed referring to you. But without any intent to be uncivil. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have no reason to presume otherwise I'll believe you when you say it wasn't your intention - we have all done things which other people have viewed differently to how you view them. Dpmuk (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've made some of my comments about the recent change above in reply to Royalguard11. I'm also somewhat confused by the new sentence concerning doc pages as this seems to go against all that Debresser has argued for above.  Often the doc page is less well protected than the template itself so surely placing the protection page on the doc page is in error as the page isn't protected. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to be confused. Let me explain. I decided that there is no reason to specify about userpages in the policy page. That's all. They are still included in the general rule though. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that you seem to be allowing doc pages to have templates that indicate a different level of protection than they actually have but above you seem to be arguing against this for all pages. Dpmuk (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I was talking about inside <includeonly ></includeonly> tags. Where we always add categories and interwiki's. And protection templates. All the things that are not for the docpage itself, but part of the metadata of the template. Because of the includeonly tags they do not affect the docpage. this is one of the things we have docpages for: to separate the template itself from its metadata. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well one possible answer presents itself - that is to change your new second sentence to:
 * If a template is protected then the protection template should be placed on the template's documentation page.
 * If the template is in include only tags then editors can edit a copy of either the template or the document page in their user space without the template being "incorrect". Obviously I wouldn't expect templates to change overnight, instead they'd just slowly change to the new system, and it may even be worth putting a footnote to the effect.  As you comment the documentation does seem the most obvious page for them. Dpmuk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm not entirely happy with the way you edited the policy why that section was actively being discussed and when no consensus had been reached. In this instance I think no harm has been done as it basically says the same thing but as this discussion was ongoing I'd have liked to have seen even a "minor copyedit" discussed here (or the change not happen to this discussion is finished) as it may have effected the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to say "should be placed on the template's documentation page", because there is no imperative. But there are minor reasons to prefer this. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Your wording leaves it open to editor discretion and, in my opinion, doesn't capture that the preference for the documentation page.  "Should" maybe too strong a word but I think the policy needs to be clear enough that if an editor moves them to the doc page they should stay there. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but think this point is too minor to actively oppose. In general I like modest formulations. May be part of my European upbringing. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest it's not a big thing with me either - it just seems more in keeping with the growing use of documentation pages (I believe there is consensus that they should be used). I'm not by any means saying that someone should go out and change what already exists but that it should be borne in mind when creating new templates or updating them.  How about "It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself." as that clearly shows it's the preferred option without forcing it on people - should mean there's no arguments about someone moving the templates but at the same time shouldn't cause editors many problems if they don't abide by it. Dpmuk (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh. Policy has always allowed users to work on pages, with protection templates, for a time in their userspace. If nothing further is done after a while then all sorts of people come in and untransclude templates, images, and categories. Policy has always allowed for this also. It's also a good way of finding dodgy forgotten-about pages to blank or delete. Editors should not generally add any protection template to any page which is not protected. Not just templates. If they do it will either be removed, or it will be ignored for a while and then removed. Because it is ultimately wrong. Endorsement by policy is not necessary. If the existence of userpages in maintenance categories is becoming an issue then they should be sub-categorised. In this respect I favour something like the current proposal, but I would also prefer it if the entire section about protection templates was reduced to a single sentence: "Protection templates should not be used on unprotected pages". -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. I wasn't sure what the "official policy" on this was, but I think if anything that does make sense. If your editing for a time yes, if for a long time then no. -Royalguard11 (T) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. At the moment, that practically comes down to the time until my (or the bot's) next round, which is about once a day. I don't think there is any practical way to do it otherwise. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what zzuuzz is saying but not to Debresser statement. I totally agree that common sense should allow actively being worked on pages to have incorrect templates for the reason discussed above and which other people here has suggested has been the status quo - and that this shouldn't need to be included in policy.  However following discussion with Debresser they seem intent on making sure the category is empty after his rounds, even if that means removing the template from a page that was being worked on a minute before.  I don't see how it's not practical to look at the edit log and if it looks like the page is being actively edited (say edits in the last 48 hours) then to allow the template to stay.  This has been my stance from the beginning, however Debresser seems to have a very different idea of how to apply "common sense" in this case and that has led to this RfC - in an attempt to get clarity.  I'd be happy not making a change to policy but still think some sort of consensus needs to be reached.  Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with you here, and perhaps that will be out consensus. While leaving the policy as it is, there is no reason why I shouldn't check the userpage history before making an edit. And if there has been a constructive edit (no bots or vandalism) in the last let's say 24h, I will leave the page alone. We are only talking about 3-8 pages a day, so that shouldn't be too much trouble. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've reached a conclusion. I'm sorry it's taken so much discussion but it seems like we're there.  I'm happy to leave it up to editors discretion when they feel a page is no longer being actively edited bearing in mind the discussion above.  If everyone else is happy I'm happy to close this RfC with this understanding of how common sense should be applied.  There is still a little bit of discussion (above) on the wording to be used in the policy but seeing as how everyone seems to agree on the principle it's just a matter of sorting out the wording I don't think we need the RfC to remain open. Dpmuk (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the wording you propose above, and the closure. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've closed this discussion and left what I think is a reasonable summary above. If anyone involved above disagrees with either the closure or the wording above please feel free to reverse it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection against bots
Is there any way of protecting a page only against edits by bots? There are some pages that are consistently subjected to incorrect edits by bots. There is no other reason to protect the page from real users. For a concrete example, see. This is just one; there are a number of others that are ongoing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In short, no, there is no existing technological way to do that. In practice, it would be better to figure out what foreign interwiki link is causing the screw-up and fix it than to block bot edits anyway.  The bot doesn't manufacture links, so it adding a bad one means some foreign wiki already has the same bad link, only in reverse. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Great—I will pursue things that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding nobots to the page would prevent exclusion compliant bots from editing. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

create protection (salting) policy
The current policy on salting is pretty open ended - however, the usual practice is to go straight to indefinite full protection.

That seems rather excessive to me. Just because one person tried to spam the same page ~3-4 times in a day (which is the most common reason for salting) doesn't make the subject non-notable forever. As such, I see no reason the default practice shouldn't be more like semi-protecting for a month rather than full protecting forever. The protection can always be increased if needed. (Yes, I know the protection can be lifted, but the procedure of getting it lifted can be burdensome to new and relatively new users.)

Other thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. The options of semi-protection and user-block should be implemented first, since they are more in proportion to the problem. General rule: solve a problem with the minimal collateral damage. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably, but I think once it gets to salting, people want to do something that'll definitely stick, and in many cases (certainly not all) a plausible page is hard to imagine. There seem to be nearly 1000 fully protected (period not specified in the listing), and less than 500 semi-protected - a lot of which, oddly, are in a single user's userspace. Rd232 talk 09:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have swapped a zero? I see less than 50 semi-protected, and thousands of full protected. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought only autoconfirmed users could create pages anyways. Semi-salting could solve many problems I guess since I believe most salted pages would have be created by newer users. In any case, the length shouldn't be forever. You could easily say 6 months of protection, and even that's probably excessive. Maybe the suggestion should be a month or two? -Royalguard11 (T) 02:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to be registered to create a page, but not auto-confirmed. In fact, the number one reason people register is to create their first page. As noted above, I certainly don't get the practice of going straight to indefinite full-protect just because a page is re-created a few times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I thought that. Maybe I was thinking of moving pages. I know when I registered the first thing I did was create a new page. -Royalguard11 (T) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have waned, but I'd certainly like there to be better guidance on when indefinite salting is appropriate. I think there are many indefinitely-salted pages that shouldn't be. It might be sensible to protect a repeatedly recreated page for six months or a year, but unless there is compelling reason to do so (through community consensus?), banishing the possibility of a page forever is a little un-Wiki-like. Chubbles (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Put a link on Village_pump_(policy) to get some more input. I am following this dicsussion. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the admins who occasionally salts pages, (and am starting to do so more frequently). So I guess I should account for myself here. Looking through the dozen pages I've protected since July there are three scenarios where I'm liable to salt a page:
 * Repeatedly recreated but potentially a valid name for an article, these tend to be of short duration to dissuade the creator, but not lock the page overly long in case it is needed for a notable person of the same name. Nibbles the hamster was an exception in that I've protected it for 6 months, but IMHO it is unlikeley to be needed for a valid article and it has been repeatedly created over the last four months.
 * Semi protection of vandalised userpages of former users. If a former editor has had their page vandalised by IPs, and it has remained vandalised for sometime then as well as cleaning and watchlisting it, I have been known to indefinitely semiprotect that page.
 * Attack pages that are unlikely to ever be needed for a valid article. Typically these are someone's name with the words "is gay" at the end. I appreciate that it is possible that one day this could cause a request for unprotection because a book, film or song had come out with that title, but I don't think that will often happen.
 * Do people think this is reasonable?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)