Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 14

One revert a day protection?
That was implemented under and arbitration on one article I worked on under "discretionary sanctions" or something. Something like that is needed in Libertarianism which has been a complete battleground between editors for last 6 months with constant administrative complaints. Can that only be done under an arbitration, since I don't see anything like that in this article? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A late reply, but WP:1RR is a behavioral restriction enforced by blocks. On occasion a single admin might impose it on someone as a condition of unblocking them. There is no technical means of preventing reverts while allowing other edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute
Proposed change on which version of a page to protect in a content dispute -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently the section Content disputes says: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

However while I think that for a simple content dispute between two inexperienced editors then arbitrarily freezing the page with the most recent revert is acceptable solution, with more experienced editors it encourages the very behaviour we wish to stop. This is because of the phenomena that diplomats refer to as "facts on the ground" or in the words of Nathan Bedford Forrest the "first with the most". Many editors perceive that if their preferred version is in place when the page is frozen then are then able to argue that there must be a "consensus" to change it.

This leads to practices such as reverting to a preferred version and then immediately putting in a Requests for page protection, or reporting the incident of "they are edit warring" to WP:ANI or putting in a Administrator intervention against vandalism because even if administrators don't agree to take further action, on the alleged infringement, they will often protect the page and the person who has made the last revert has "facts on the ground". Other experienced editors knowing that at any moment the page may be protected with the "wrong version" are under considerable pressure to revert the page to their preferred version in case the page is protected. Both parties know that in an ideal world they should not be reverting, but the dynamics of the system resulting from the current specification encourage their behaviour.

A similar problem used to occur in WP:RM because of the requirement to show there was a consensus for a move, encouraged editors to move a page (facts on the ground), because there then needed to be a clear consensus to move it back. But that behaviour was stopped by allowing an editor to move the page back to the last stable version before a WP:RM was started (see the section "uncontroversial requests").

I this case, unlike page moves, because content changes to pages frequently build up it can be next to impossible for an administrator to decide what was the last stable version, therefore we can not use the same simple rule as us used in WP:RM. Instead we need one that is equally transparent and easy to understand. So the change to this policy that I think would help prevent content disputes becoming edit wars would be to alter the wording in the "Content disputes" section to recommended that: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons, administrators should normally protect the version before the last revert, or as this sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

I think that this simple alteration will have a great effect of moving content disputes among experienced editors from article space onto the talk pages which is where they ought to be.

As this would be a major change in how content disputes are handled, I would like as many administrators as possible to consider this proposal and express opinions on it. I am sure there are points that I have not considered that ought to be raised and discussed before any change is made. -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: neglected to make a disclosure - he is involved in an ongoing dispute involving a page that was recently full-protected - Targeted killing. See, , , and Request for Comment, at Talk:Assassination (I was the admin that protected it). This proposed change by  could be see as a form of wikilawyering and forumshopping, regarding that ongoing dispute. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cirt What do you mean by ongoing dispute? I am involved in a number of RFCs are are they all disputes? As I have not reverted Targeted killing back to the redirect it was for a number of years, in nearly two weeks, so why do consider it to be an active dispute? Cirt, If you are assuming good faith can you please explain by what Machivilian scheem you think this proposal "could be see as a form of wikilawyering and forumshopping, regarding that ongoing dispute"? -- PBS (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This proposed change is unnecessary. Of course admins can already remove vandalism and BLP violations from full-protected pages. Instituting this change could lead to wikilawyering on "which version" contains something that someone thinks from their particular POV is disagreeable. Worse yet, for non-obvious cases, it could lead to disruption, or even wheel warring among administrators. The intended impact related to vandalism and BLP issuse, is already fully apparent, from existing site policy pages. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment the current wording means an administator can change to any version they think best. The only change I am suggesting is that instead of freezing the page at the most recent arbitrary edit the default is the previous edit. This would not lead to any more wheel warring among administrators than currently happens. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have trouble seeing how this would prevent gaming by the experienced edit warrior; indeed, I fear that it would make it worse. This modification would mean that warriors up against 3RR would get another revert 'for free' from the protecting admin.  If the current version of the article is deeply flawed, then the admin is already empowered to roll back to the last stable version; we already know that protecting the current revision (or the immediately preceding one) is going to be protecting the Wrong Version.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No they would not because the chances are that it would be their version which was reverted, because their behaviour can at any time be reported to ANI and unlike the current method which encourages reverting to a preferred version while the ANI process is done, this would encourage editors not to have their preferred version on the page. The whole point of the proposal is to damp down content disputes on the article page and encourage more use of the talk page before the article page is frozen. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As you note, "this would encourage editors not to have their preferred version on the page." My concern, therefore, is that it might result in false flag sock/meat puppetry.  If page protection appeared imminent, a party could use an alternate account (or a friend, thereby thwarting a CheckUser investigation) to revert to his/her non-preferred version, ensuring that an administrator would revert back to his/her preferred version when protecting it.  This, of course, would encourage opposing parties to act in kind, bizarrely inverting the edit war instead of halting it (and effectively punishing users refraining from such behavior, particularly those to whom such a scheme would never even occur).  —David Levy 01:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing the three-revert rule which is to do with blocking editors, and this proposal which is to do with protecting a page. Usually the two do not go hand in hand. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the above reply intended for someone else? —David Levy 05:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * yes it was because of the point you raised with Hesperian below I think it becomes intertwined with you worries about sock puppetry. -- PBS (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant to my concerns. —David Levy 06:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If some one is going to result to tactics like that then they will end up with a user block. At the moment people can perfectly legally game the system by timing their revert and a request for administrator intervention. This suggestion is not to deal with sockpuppet cases, a but with two (or sometimes more) editors who do not break any rules who end up in a slow revert war because of the tradition of an administrator simply protecting the most recent version (as described above). This change is to brake that cycle and help encourage editors of the wise good standing to reach a compromise on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. I'm referring to tactics that might be undetectable. Even the opposing party could be misled to believe that another editor has reverted to his/her preferred version for sincere reasons.  And if he/she is unaware of the impending administrative reversion or doesn't wish to exploit it by engaging in retaliatory sock/meat puppetry, the disengagement that your proposal is intended to encourage — while appearing to occur — actually is the deceptive party standing back and waiting for an administrator to revert on his/her behalf and protect the page.  And if the opposing party is aware of the impending administrative reversion and does wish to exploit it, the aforementioned inverted edit war will ensue.
 * 2. I realize that the proposal is not intended to address sock puppetry. I'm pointing out that it would encourage new instances of sock/meat puppetry.  —David Levy 05:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If a person is going to resort to sock puppetry over this issue then, that person is likely to be doing it at the moment because of the three revert rule. In most cases I think we can assume good faith and that most editors edit within the guidelines. For example many experienced editors revert to preferred versions but not many experienced editors knowingly breach the 3RR rule. While some experienced editors may game the system few (I hope) would resort to sock puppets. Those few times where I have been involved in sophisticated sockpuppetry it always comes as a real surprise that such an apparently upright fellow was in fact not so. (That is not to say that with some editors it really comes as little surprises that they resort to such perfidy). I think that the wording already there which is included in this proposal will allow sufficient discretion for administrators to use their own judgement if such shenanigans are suspected. -- PBS (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm referring to situations in which such "shenanigans" are likely to go undetected.
 * The hypothetical sock/meat puppetry that I've described differs from the conventional type in the key respect that if one editor is familiar with the system and the other is not, the former could exploit this to effectively lock in his/her preferred version with the greatest of ease.
 * Under the current rules, an editor familiar with the system (and mindful of the three-revert rule) might use a sock/meat puppet to revert to his/her preferred version. If the opposing editor is unfamiliar with the system, he/she might simply continue reverting (and likely end up with a warning), and the page probably will be protected as whichever version the administrator happens to encounter.
 * Under the proposed rules, an editor familiar with the system (and aware of the impending protection) could use a sock/meat puppet to revert to his/her non-preferred version. If the opposing editor is unfamiliar with the system, he/she will see no reason to do anything, so the deceptive editor can simply stand back and wait for an administrator to revert back to his/her preferred version and protect the page.  —David Levy 06:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think David that we will have to agree to disagree, let others read this exchange and decide for themselves if on balance this proposed change would indeed encourage a significant level of sockpuppet behaviour of the type you suggest it might. -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The "another revert for free" kind of makes sense. Consider the simple two-party case where one person is seeking to make a contentious change to a previously stable article. The person seeking the contentious change gets to make the initial edit, and then revert to it three times. The person opposing the contentious change merely gets three reverts. The proposed change would indeed see the person opposing the contentious change get "another revert for free", thus resulting in the article being protected on the stable version rather than the contentious version. Hesperian 03:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule does not mean that editors are entitled to revert a page three times per day. The longstanding logic is that if an edit contradicts consensus, there should be more than one editor willing to revert it.  —David Levy 04:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that. I merely observed that TenOfAllTrades' revert-count-based argument might just as well lead one to support PBS's proposal, as to opposing it. That doesn't mean I endorse the argument, and it certainly doesn't mean I think 3RR is an entitlement. Hesperian 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah. PBS' proposal actually makes it worse, in the case of a fringe editor inserting dodgy material despite the objections of more than one other editor (per David Levy).  As long as at least two people do agree that the fringe editor's additions are contentious, then they will always be able to bring the article back to a stable state without tripping over 3RR.  At that point, either the reverts stop with the article on the stable original version, or the fringe editor gets blocked for a firm 3RR violation.  Either way, the status quo is restored.  On the other hand, PBS' proposal means that the fringe editor can place his material four times, be reverted by two other editors a similar total of four times, and can then go and have an admin revert his fringe edits back in and protect the page.  Not good.  It means that the edit warrior with the load of contentious material has no disincentive to edit war, because he'll be able to recruit an admin at his leisure to revert to and protect his preferred revision.  I grant that things are a bit murkier when there is only one editor on each side of the dispute &mdash; but in the absence of third-party input, how can we be sure that the new edits are actually problematic?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. You've convinced me. Hesperian 01:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In such a case the page would not be protected, the transgressor of the 3RR would be blocked. At the moment if the "fringe editor" knows how to game the system they will time their third revert and immediately put in a request for the page to be protected. If the "administrators normally protect the current version," the the fringe editor ends up as the fringe version protected without the need to breach 3RR. This is one consideration that encourages otherwise level headed editors to revert immediately, rather than discussing it on the talk page. Another reason is that often one party will not engage in conversation on the talk page unless their version has been reverted. This proposal will not solve that issue, but at least it would slow down reverts by removing one stress that causes them to be made quickly. -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Edit wars lead to extremely confusing situations. An admin who decides to protect a non-current version is taking the risk of making a mistake. In most cases that risk is not worth running. When I see that an admin has protected a non-current version it makes me nervous (unless it is vandalism or BLP), since I wonder if there will be a good enough explanation. If the admin winds up protecting the Wrong Version, this can be rectified by a discussion on the article talk page, followed by an editprotected request if consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be no more confusing that the current rule which usually ends up with the current version kept in place, which tends to encourage reverting. See WP:RM where it works without a hitch. If this was to be done then you would need to be nervous if the administrator protected the most recent version of the page. The administrator always ends up protecting the Wrong Version, it is just this way it would not encourage editors in dispute to try to get their preferred version to the top of the stack, instead it would be in their interests to have the second one in the stack. This will tend to dampened down article edit wars instead of encouraging them which is what the current practice does. Your suggestion of "this can be rectified by a discussion on the article talk page, followed by an editprotected request if consensus is found." is precisely why the current protection of the most recent version encourages edit warring, because often there are so few editors involved in the dispute there is no possibility of the current version being replaced through the mechanism you are suggesting hence the tendency to "get your retaliation in first" and try to make sure that it is your version that is protected which you opponent colleague has to show there is no consensus for. It is precisely this sort of combination that encourages edit warring, which would be dissipated if it was the last but one version that was restored before the page was protected. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per my concerns expressed above, which Philip Baird Shearer has not addressed to my satisfaction. —David Levy 05:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I have been tempted to do this myself before reporting to RfPP when discussion hasn't been forthcoming - I think this probably happens more than people care to admit and that this is a sensible step forward. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though any kind of automatic rule is going to be gamed - admins have to be trusted to think, and to judge in a given situation who's working for the good of the encyclopedia and who's pushing a point.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support although like Kotniski I think it could be gamed, and it may not work effectively in a multi-editor pile up (page moves tend to be binary, either it's called Foo or its called Bar, so it's easy to see what is the move and what is the revert), it is certainly worth a try to see if it has the effect of damping edit warring. It may just have the effect of damping reports of edit warring.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, it's an issue, and I've seen it, but this can be gamed either way. (The proposed change can be gamed by waiting for one's "opponent" to revert, and then rushing to RFPP.) Gaming can usually be figured out after the fact, when things have calmed down, and when done chronically, it is an appropriate issue for an RfC/U, etc. The "wrong version" template is adequate to alert readers, and beyond that we need to realize that the sky does not fall when the wrong version is what is displayed. This feeling of it's absolutely awful if the wrong version is allowed to stay is actually the misjudgment at the core of a huge percentage of all conduct problems that we have. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "(The proposed change can be gamed by waiting for one's "opponent " to revert, and then rushing to RFPP.)" That is the whole point, and in such a scenario this change would have to be judged a success because such gaming calculations has stopped at least one revert ("'One' said Slightly") -- and having rushed to an WP:RFPP if it is refused and the editor then reverts (s)he leave herself/himself open to claims that (s)he is knowingly revert warring. If it stops one in the chain then is not the other person going to make similar calculations and perhaps not make their revert? ("'Two' said Slightly").-- PBS (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Tryptofish sums it up well... I agree that using the "wrong version" template is the way to go... it clearly acknowledges (and with appropriate humor) that the protection is not an endorsement of the protected text... and that the protecting admin understands that someone is going to be unhappy, no matter which version is protected.   Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Wrong Version.svg Current policy language is reasonable. Protection is about ending edit wars, not participating in them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No its is not intended as a joke. Why do you think it might be? No one has suggested that the current wording is not reasonable. What is being proposed is wording to help to end reverts sooner than currently happens. The wording is intended to reduce reverting and inadvertent administrator participation in some disputes, in what way do you think the wording encourages more participation in a dispute? -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this, you have misunderstood. The caption on the image is referring to the image itself, which is in fact intended as a joke. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The present wording is good enough and is impartial as soon as an admin start listening to one side of an edit war they lose their neutrality. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The change would no more have administrators listening to one side or the other than currently happens. If you think it would, I would be interested to hear how. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. At various times, I've protected on the current version, a version prior to the dispute, a randomly-selected version, and even on a new version that I knew both parties would find unacceptable.  It's all a matter of looking at the dispute and picking the best method to get people to discuss rather than edit-war. --Carnildo (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone focuses far too much on "the parties" - it's as if we're voluntarily agreeing to be held hostage by belligerent agenda pushers, and the quality of a "solution" depends on the resulting behaviour and level of satisfaction of "the parties". Never mind the parties, think about the encyclopedia and its readers - use the opportunity of a difference of opinions to make a reasoned judgement about what the encyclopedia should be saying. Ideally (obviously subject to time constraints) an admin should not be blindly locking any version of a page, but should be acting in the interests of the encyclopedia, including initiating proper and focussed discussion between "the parties" and making it clear what kinds of arguments and insinuations will and will not be tolerated in that discussion, and ensuring that discussion and the implementation of its results are not disrupted, and good contributors are not driven out by bad ones.--Kotniski (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose in implementation, support in spirit This suffers from the Princess Bride syndrome. I think Kotniski makes some good points here.  I wouldn't be opposed to more strongly recommending reversion to a version before the edit war, if a clean one exists.  Gigs (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's almost never a right version, rolling back to the previous edit simply means that the person who's made the request (for whatever reason, and second guessing that is hard) gets put off editing because they feel that they're being punished for requesting the protection. As it stands now, the guidance is imperfect, but functions fine in the vast majority of cases. Ged  UK  22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment + alt approach
 * The existing and proposed wordings apparently contain the identical provision ("administrators may also revert"), the difference is better grammar.
 * The issue is to reduce gaming and jockeying for the "last revision left standing" without creating more scope for newer games or placing it in the hands of the first admin, in a position of "judge and jury between versions" (except for obvious vandalism etc). I'd do it a different way, by adding something with this effect:
 * "If the protecting administrator considers the protected version is much less likely to represent consensus or quality than some other history revision, then he/she may present any concerns and request a consensus of uninvolved users at the appropriate noticeboard to revert to and protect another suitable revision instead."
 * While not perfect, it provides a minimally gameable route to have protection end up on "the better version" more often than not, if there is a real concern by the protecting admin, but without harming any "balance of power", allowing tendentiousness by involved users, or opening routes for abuse. It's likely the grounds for such a request would be clear from the page history.


 * Of course the page editors could agree this by consensus, but a lot of the time they are unable to agree. This allows the closing admin a way to bypass that problem and appeal quickly to uninvolved users if there is a reason (in his/her judgment as an admin but without affecting his/her neutrality) why it might be better to revert to and protect some other than the latest revision. FT2 (Talk 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive use of full protection
I'm finding that full protection is being used rather excessively. To me, full protection should only be used when there's serious problems such as extensive edit-warring by multiple parties. Instead it's being used when there's wars between two users or when the wars are not particularly fierce, or for other strange reasons. One important point is that they're often protected for a very long time. Category:Wikipedia protected pages shows some of these issues. Why was Herbert Sandler full protected for a whole six months? The admin said "BLP semi-protection" but actually it was full. Wendy Starland was protected for three months with reason "Excessive vandalism: Protection requested per the subject". I can't see where in the policy it says article subjects are allowed to request full protection of their articles. That article has been edited by someone called User:Wendystarland and contains serious problems - primarily POV and sourcing. Look at for example these series of edits and these by an IP. Write a POV piece and then ask for protection so noone can remove the spam. What that article needs is not protection but serious editing. I think there needs to be a culture shift where admins use full protection more conservatively. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Protection is done very much on a case-by-case basis. If there are specific cases where it is being used inappropriately the first thing you should do is contact the admin who applied the protection and inform them of your concerns. You can also request unprotection or reduction of protection at WP:RFPP. If you have specific edits you would like to make while an article is protected you can add to the talk page and detail your edits there. If they are uncontroversial and specific an admin can make the changes on your behalf. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

More accessible protection icons
Originally posted here, but then realized it was better to stick the discussion at Template_talk:Pp-meta. Cheers. =) -- slakr \ talk / 06:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Revamped icon key
I've re-coded the table in the lead of the page that displays all of the different locks and what they mean. I don't know about you, but when I previously viewed the page, the table cut the lead into two parts and overlapped some of the text. In addition, it was rather large, and being nestled in the center was quite intrusive. I've gone ahead and aligned it to the right and made it the same width as the Five Pillars navigation box that is right above it. Just wanted to throw this out there in case someone was particularly fond of the previous scheme. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Uniformity
When listing the policy shortcuts, the color of the lock is usually listed last. However, for upload protection (purple lock), the color shortcut (WP:PURPLELOCK) is listed first. Can we switch these so that all sections are uniform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, every little thing helps... Done. Victor Yus (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"A page and its talk page should not normally be protected at the same time."
Would it be possible to insert a clarification on when it is OK, and when it is not OK, for an article talk page to be protected? Case in point is the article circumcison. -- 92.226.93.64 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that becomes too much policy-creep. There are reasons when talkpages need to be protected that are quite obvious ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

SALTing - wording seems ambiguous
A current ANI discussion shows that the words "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor.", in reference to SALTing, are ambiguous. Does it have to be the same editor, or not? It seems likely to me that the mention of "by an editor" was intended to mean "the same editor" (why else include those three words?), but it has been said that "it doesn't qualify how many different editors were involved in the different "new" versions".

I suggest that this should be amended to read either:
 * Version A: "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by the same editor."

or simply:
 * Version B: "This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated."

to make it clear which is intended.

Any thoughts?

Pam D  07:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just guessing, but I would think the second version is what was intended. Doesn't matter whether or not it's the same person doing it (how would we tell, anyway?) I would also perhaps say: "repeatedly deleted and recreated". Victor Yus (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was ever intended to imply that it must be one editor, even if that is a common scenario. That wouldn't make sense, as it could be recreated 20 times by different people and be unsaltable.  I don't see the current version as so very flawed, however, and instead one editor saw it differently.  Unless this is a larger issue, I would leave as it is.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do we use salt? What are we trying to protect against and what will be the effects of this policy? We should be clear what we're trying to achieve before we decide how to achieve it.
 * Salt is clearly there for a few reasons, some more important than others.
 * Repeated re-creations by a single editor, sock- or meat-puppet are a form of edit-warring by creation. Good case for salting.
 * "  is a  " can be agreed to be an inappropriate libel that should never exist. Good case for salting.
 * The problem really arises in another case, that of multiple creation of different, related content by separate editors. There are two interpretations of this.
 * An earlier deletion has been superseded or was incorrect with hindsight. Many deletions per WP:CRYSTAL might eventually meet this. The support by multiple editors can be seen as now indicating widespread support for the article.
 * Wiki Has Spoken. These multiple editors are challenging dogma. As Wiki is never wrong, these editors must be wrong instead. They will always be wrong, no matter how many of them there are, or how ridiculous this deletion may begin to appear in the future.
 * Increasingly we see the second interpretation. An original deletion for the most trivial of reasons (often a premature article, or inadequate sourcing at the time) becomes entrenched out of all proportion to the article or the content issue, because the re-creation is instead seen as an attack on the status quo and the deference to the almighty and infallible admins. This is bad. This is what's happening in the current ANI thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Version B; salting is just as appropriate for collections of fanboys as it is a single overly persistent editor. Nobody Ent 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If what Andy says is happening really is happening, then it is indeed worrying. I would have hoped that "salting" was only used as a weapon against existing disruption (someone or someones repeatedly recreating an article with the same content or with the same problem that led to its being deleted). If someone wants to start a new version of the article that doesn't have that problem, then that ought to be fine, and any admin ought to respond positively to a desalting request in that situation. Though I'm not a fan of instruction creep, if it's the case that this sort of thing needs to be spelt out to admins, then let's spell it out. Victor Yus (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But when there is a consensus that a subject is not notable or otherwise should not have an article, other editors often attempt to get around that consensus by repeatedly posting the same or similar articles until admins give up. We salt the title at that point, not so much to stop new content, but to force discussion. If editors can then make a reasonable case for inclusion, the page can easily be unsalted. But if their focus is just on recreating the article over and over, they'll never discuss it and we'll never move forward. Indeed, I believe the warning when you try to create a SALTed title tells you to go somewhere and discuss it first - which, if their proposal has merit, will quickly lead to an unSALTing. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The standard state / design of Wikipedia is that new articles are unprotected, even if they've been deleted. Contrast (as non-admin) the states of QUENTIQ and Kraftwurx. The former is fairly clear in telling the user the state of the page and what to do if considering recreating, and assumes good faith that they will do so. (See example, disclosure: Gerardw is my prior account name). This concept that users without a demonstrated history of incompetence have to jump throught Mother May I? hoops to recreate an article is troubling on the Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 13:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem comes in when the editor ignores the instructions about the state of the page and what to do if considering recreating - one deletion should never justify a SALT, and I don't think that's the focus of this bit of the policy. Perhaps my view is a minority one. But I always figured that it was more for articles where an editor or editors are attempting to post an unsuitable article, have been told why it is unsuitable (we don't accept copyvio, non-notable subject, etc) and how to fix it, and yet continue to just post the same article repeatedly without discussion or comment. When we SALT that article, the editors end up asking why they can't post - and then we can discuss why it was deleted in the first place. In some cases, they are able (and willing) to work with the editors and fix the problems. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No argument with salting when appropriate; the specific ANI case that initiated this was reported as two creates about half a year apart by different editors. I don't think the current nor either proposed version applies to this particular case. Nobody Ent 14:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the same editor posted the same byte-for-byte problematic version? Maybe. Even if time has passed, some editors will wait a while before making another attempt, in hopes that the deleting admin will not notice. But I doubt I would have protected in the case you refer to. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both A and B have valid uses. For example, a single editor creates it, it's deleted, and re-created again by same editor word-for-word ... smells like salt.  Or, editor X creates.  It's deleted.  Editor Y re-creates similar.  Deleted.  Editor Z re-creates ... I smell salt (I also smell WP:SOCK, but that's an even more foul odour).  It was never intended to mean that salting could only occur if created by the same editor continually ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A is a subset of B, so if both A and B are valid, the policy should be B. Nobody Ent 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with that reasoning. Though the way it's worded, "This is useful..." doesn't sound like policy much. If this is seriously to be a policy page, it might at least attempt to delineate the situations in which we think particular actions ought and ought not to be taken. Questions of what's "useful" and so on can be separated off into guidelines for admins. Victor Yus (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Te Amo Gold Certification
Can someone please remove this? The reference links to an Australian certification for the song and I haven't been able to find any proof the song has been certified at all, or that it even has charted in New Zealand at all!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.93.169 (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fanboyism
Is it just me or is edit protection often the result of fanboys being overly protective of articles relating to something they really care about and don't won't "inexperienced noobs" and such putting what they believe to be false information on something as widely used as wikipedia? Just a thought. I have noticed edit protect alot more frequently on articles relating to franchises that have very dedicated fanbases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.172.229 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sometimes requests like that, and probably are some articles that have been protected inappropriately, but I think the vast majority of articles are protected after there has been a problem there. Popular franchises, in addition to attracting protective fans, also attract a lot of vandalism, which then often leads to protection. There are also fair number of articles with long term protection that probably don't need it, I know I've encountered a few in responding to edit requests that I then requested the removal of protection on, but I don't think there is much attention paid to removing semi-protection from articles that may not need it. Partly that is probably because most of the editors with enough experience to think of requesting un protection are themselves unaffected be semi-protection and thus don't have much motive to do anything about it. Monty  845  23:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012
FIXXXXX THISSSS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt The end of the first paragraph in this article is incorrect. There are 4 U.S presidents to win the nobel peace prize not 3. Jimmy Carter is the missing recipient.

Greg884321 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed "This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages." And the current content is correct. Carter was not a sitting President when he won the prize. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection of talkpage archives
Right, this is something that really needs to be decided upon. I have 7 talk archives, 6 of which are fully indefinitely protected without question. My request to protect the 7th today was declined as "There may be reasons for others to edit the page (to unlink something, to change usernames after somebody has vanished etc.)" It seems the decision is left too much to the administrator's discretion. Over on CSD, we have a "On user request within own userspace" deletion template which is almost always granted. I feel it should be the same regarding protection except to the user's actual talk page. I also feel the excuse given today is invalid, because if an edit is absolutely necessary to the archive after it has been protected then an administrator can still perform the edit. So, I'm now asking for concensus for 'upon user request within own userspace' to be standard. Thank you Osarius - Want a chat? 17:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

Neutral

Oppose


 * 1) For reasons given by the admin and because sometimes it's useful to add an to an archive page. Nobody Ent 17:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, an admin could make that edit anyway, and it would probably be an admin making that edit. Osarius - Want a chat? 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done it to many pages, including ArbCom pages that are technically "not editable" by anyone besides the committee & its clerks. As long as you're not changing content no one seems to mind. Nobody Ent 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Small maintenance edits like that should be doable by anyone. Why force admin involvement over something as trivial as this? —Kusma (t·c) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Apart from the reasons I already gave (and philosophical reasons), I have another couple of example of edits to user talk archives that I feel should be allowed. When images are deleted or renamed, usually bots go around making edits to fix the pages using them. Also when templates are subst'ed and deleted. It is not necessary to turn this kind of small maintenance edits into work for administrators. At the same time, I see very little advantages to protecting this kind of pages. —Kusma (t·c) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Kusma's reasons. I have never had a need to protect my own talk archives - all 23 of them. It would be a complete waste of time to pre-emptively protect them all - even more so for a non-admin to do the same. But also occasionally someone will come along and change or remove a troublesome section, particularly where privacy issues are involved, remove backlinks, images, templates, categories, signatures, etc. There are many legitimate reasons to edit a talk archive, and in most cases no reason to lock them up. I oppose for those reasons, but my major concern is the complete waste of admin time when 'vandal-fighters' or 'anon-haters' start requesting protection willy nilly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * I actually think that the protection policy is clear on this: "User pages and subpages are sometimes protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism/disruption or other good reason to do so." I do not think that "the user wants the page to be protected" is a "good reason to do so". I also do not believe that user talk subpages fall under this. —Kusma (t·c) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why is "the user want the page to be deleted" a valid reason for a page to be deleted (a far more destructive action than protection) a good reason over at WP:SPEEDY? Like I was saying before, it seems it's one rule for one, and another rule for another and it just doesn't make sense to have these inconsistencies in these policies. Osarius - Want a chat? 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One notable difference is that a U1 or G7 deletion return matters to the status-quo that existed before the requesting editor edited. Whereas protecting a page locks in place the change to Wikipedia made by the editor. Monty  845  19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk pages and their archives differ from other parts of userspace because they serve as a record for and of everyone else, not just the putative owner. For this reason they are treated differently, and you will not get your talk page or its archives speedy deleted under U1 or G7 (both of which explicitly exclude talk pages) except in exceptional circumstances. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We could discuss all archive subpages, not just user talk archives in particular. I think the answer should be the same: do not protect pre-emptively (you never know when or why somebody might need to edit the page). —Kusma (t·c) 18:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RTV, signatures are not changed when someone is vanished. I personally see no reason to preemptively protect talk page archives, but I also don't see a good reason why a user's request for talk page protection in their own userspace should be denied. The type of small maintenance tasks discussed above wont hurt anyone if they aren't performed, and I wonder if it might sometimes be better if they weren't in the case of talk page archives. The important thing to me is that the protection policy be applied equitably. I know there are at least a few admins who protect their own talk page archives, if they are allowed to do so, then requests from editors for the same should be routinely granted. Monty  845  18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen people change their username from their real name to a pseudonym and then update their signature everywhere (including in archives). As this is a privacy-related matter, I think it is best if these edits can happen without needing editprotected in various places and otherwise making a big fuss out of it. "Everyone can edit" should not be routinely broken. —Kusma (t·c) 04:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO protection is applied far too liberally when it comes to userpages/subpages/archives etc. There are many users who are obviously just hat collecting going around asking for this subpage and that archive to be protected without any reason other than "I want it". It achieves nothing except to add more work to an already regularly backlogged RFPP-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I quote from the talk archive template : "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.". Hmm, Do Not Edit seems a pretty good reason to protect it, because you shouldn't ... Osarius - Want a chat? 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notably it does not say that all editing is forbidden. It's designed for people needing pointers who would start or continue a discussion in the wrong place, or indeed modify an old one, not for those who might have good reason to edit the page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken Link
source number 32 should point to http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnclarke/2012/08/13/is-nbcs-animal-practice-the-most-hated-show-on-television/, but the URL in the link has an extra l appended to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.26.98 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggest new template: request protection removal.
I'd like to suggest the creation of a template similar to Edit semi-protected. The template would allow editors to request protection removal. I appreciate that protection is very necessary, but I feel there are occasions when it could be removed before the scheduled expiry date. Perhaps a template could be set up and tested for a while. It could be removed if it proved to be creating too much work for admins, or if people started abusing it. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 146.90.141.14, so there is a way. You may request it at Requests for Page Protection.  They can protect pages and unprotect them.   Ebe  123  → report 00:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok.Thanks. I'll use the board. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia tell us how many pages are protected/locked/etc ?
Is it possible for Wikipedia to list the number of pages protected in various ways as part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy ?

Enumerating such pages would be lovely too.

In any case, somewhat similar to http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ it'd be great to make this landscape of debatable/difficult hot-topic pages much more visible to the wide world, if possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.249.203.68 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The page you want is Special:ProtectedPages. I pulled a list of "indefinite protections only" fully-edit-protected article pages and the count was 1796 articles.  I'm sure there are many more if you include those which are not "indefinitely" protected and which are only semi-protected.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of highly-visible templates protection
The (full-)protection of templates as it is highly visible prevents good edits, and that it requires an edit request to be done by sysops discourage people. The protection is because many edits can create server lag and vandals could do even more damage. I think that the protection could be changed to a more user-friendly thing. Some solutions is a 1RR restriction to promote discussion, more developement if does not work, and less server lag. There could also be a shared edit-notice such as what is done for BLPs. Here are some ideas, and feel free to add.


 * 1) Keep as is (per existing policy)
 * 2) Unprotect completely
 * 3) Unprotect completely with an edit-notice
 * 4) Unprotect completely with an 1RR restriction
 * 5) Unprotect completely with an edit-notice and 1RR restriction
 * 6) Semi-protect all
 * 7) Semi-protect all with an edit-notice
 * 8) Semi-protect all with an 1RR restriction
 * 9) Semi-protect all with an edit-notice and 1RR restriction
 * 10) Semi-protect templates with full-protection, and unprotect semi-protected templates (although not un-protecting templates that had their protection changed from full-protection)
 * 11) Semi-protect templates with full-protection, and unprotect semi-protected templates (although not un-protecting templates that had their protection changed from full-protection) with an edit-notice
 * 12) Semi-protect templates with full-protection, and unprotect semi-protected templates (although not un-protecting templates that had their protection changed from full-protection) with an 1RR restriction
 * 13) Semi-protect templates with full-protection, and unprotect semi-protected templates (although not un-protecting templates that had their protection changed from full-protection) with an edit-notice and 1RR restriction

Feel free to add more suggestions. I support #9. Ebe 123  → report 13:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 Nobody Ent 13:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for changing it to numbers, but I think that for voting, we should keep "*" as it is confusing "1. 7 ~ ".  Ebe  123  → report 13:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mass protection or unprotection of anything is always a bad idea. Templates are mainly protected to prevent vandalism from often deranged individuals who have no respect for rules, restrictions, or notices. Of all the options, only the current policy recognises both these truths. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have options for semi-protect them. Also, there is also the option of giving a block immediatly as it affected over 4 pages anyways.   Ebe  123  → report 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which 4 pages you're referring to. Blocks are relatively immediate and permanent for template vandalism, but this doesn't prevent extensive disruption as a result of the vandalism, nor does it prevent recurrences from similar autoconfirmed accounts. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saying that vandalising a template makes the pages of which it is transcluded also vandalised. If there are auto-confirmed users vandalising, how are they not blocked yet?  They would get blocked too, and they generally do not vandalise.  Blocks prevents alot of the vandalism, if made by the same user.  If protection were supposed to get rid of all vandalism, we would not have semi-protection.   Ebe  123  → report 01:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the proposal recognizes the reason we have full protection for highly visible, high use templates. It has nothing, as far as I know, to do with server lag and "vandals could do even more damage" doesn't really capture the issue. The issue is that if an IP or autoconfirmed vandal inserts a shock image into infobox, then the 1,139,618 pages it is transcluded in would have that image showing until the vandalism was reverted. As such, we cannot ever have that template, and others similarly situated, not fully-protected. Not all templates are that high use. So, the only way I can think this would be workable is to come up with a number range of transclusions above which a template must be fully-protected but below which some other sort of arrangement could apply. We would necessarily have to be arbitrary in picking the line in the sand number. My gut is that below 300 transclusions feels about right to limit the damage of potential vandalism. I know that that cut off leaves a vast number of templates fully-protected, but that's the reality of the situation. Fully protecting highly visible templates is not ideal but the alternative is worse.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, I think the threshold should really be much higher for full protection. I agree that full protection should remain for truly high visibility templates. Autoconfirmed vandals are rare enough that 300 is unnecessarily restrictive. I would say the threshold should be closer to 5k. Monty  845  02:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there are more good-faith edits than vandalizing edits (check the recent changes). There could be more progress on the templates by un-protecting them than by keeping them protected. And other namespaces are less known to the IPs and the newly autoconfirmed.   Ebe  123  → report 11:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While the threshshold is arguable, I think that we still need to fully protect any templates with many transclusions. And there should be a lower number such that any template with that many transclusions should be semi-protected. Keep in mind that a single edit to a highly transcluded page, even if reverted immediately, can cause many articles to appear vandalized in a cached version (which anons tend to see), in google searches, etc. And if the vandalism includes categrization, it may take hours for the category to be cleared of the junk. And template vandalism is more difficult to find than other types, as the page it's seen on isn't the page it was done on. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any unprotection of highly visible templates. The multiple LTA vandals, especially the ones who create sock famrs who know and have already easily gotten through autoconfirmation is enough justification. This latest incident further supports the necessity to have full protection. We don't have any other ways of preventing this type of vandalism. Elockid  ( Talk ) 12:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Highly visible templates with several thousand mainspace transclusions should remain fully protected obviously, but there are plenty of templates which are protected for no apparent reason. For example, bio-warn-deletion, a outdated spinoff of Db-notability-notice). Yoenit (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My mostly-random number suggestions: 300+ = semi-protection with edit link showing through; 1,000+ or 300+ w/o edit link showing through = full-protection. The reason - templates are a relatively easy way to mass-vandalize the wiki.  Templates w/o an edit link are hard for non-expert users to find and fix.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Something needs to be done I often want to edit templates, and they are protected way too quick. The threshold for both semi and full protection should be upped considerably. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Something must be done indeed. I agree with that and that's why I made this proposal.   Ebe  123  → report 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Generate a monthly transclusion report showing un-protected, highly-transcluded templates and protected, low-transclusion pages.  The first time the report is run, manully generate a "white list" of pages whose protection level needs to stay put even if the transclusion count goes up or down.  Each month, look through the report and change the protection level, add it to the white-list, or leave it alone.  Every year or two, review the white-list.  Any tool-writers out there up to the task of making it easy to run and review the monthly reports?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We actually have these reports. See Database reports/Indefinitely protected templates without many transclusions and Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions. They aren't updated very frequently, though. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe many of these templates should be semi-protected at most. However, I also agree that vandalism is a serious concern; someone adding an obscene image to a template with several million (or even several thousand) transclusions would cause a lot of trouble. That having been said, there should be some way to allow a regular user to edit these templates while keeping vandals out at the same time. Here are some of my ideas (although most of them will require software changes):


 * Protected editing rights for trusted users
 * Enable pending changes for high-risk templates (only approved revisions will be transcluded)
 * Another level of semi-protection (prevents edits from accounts that (say) have less than 1,000 edits and are less than three months old)
 * The ability to add established users to a "can edit" list of a page. Users on that list would be able to edit the page regardless of its protection status.


 * Just my two cents. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages
Ok, as I look over the whole page, I have a few thoughts. With very few exceptions, it is primarily talking about the even namespaces (non-talk), with the presumption that talk pages are to be used for discussion while a page is under protection. If there was a section specifically concerning talk pages (such as "the protection of", as well as "the usage of" when its opposing "main" page is protected), I think that that could help with clarity, and reduce redundancy. - jc37 00:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

early history of protection for pages
Hello -- as part of a large-scale study of emergent phenomena in human social systems, I am trying to determine the role of protection/semi-protection in the creation of consensus and the resolution of disputes.

I have been trying to determine the protection status of pages before around 12/2005, when the Protection Logs start providing edit=autoconfirmed/edit=sysop information in the edit summary. Prior to 12/2005 it is hard to determine when a page is edit or move protected, and it is also hard to determine, if it is edit protected, what the level of that protection amounts to (e.g., sysop only, autoconfirmed, etc.) For example, the GWB log shows a number of cases where an editor is listed protecting a page, but examination of the edit history around that time shows that anonymous IPs still are able to edit.

Is there any reliable source of information on what the exact status of a particular page was before 12/2005? Perhaps (e.g.) records might have been kept on a separate server, or may be accessible in ugly but machine-readable form?

Also, is there any reliable source of information as to what a protection meant for users in this period?

Many thanks for any help; you may contact me on my talk page, or by e-mail at simon[at]santafe.edu

Simon DeDeo / Dedeo sfi (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied on the help desk. PleaseStand (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User Pages
Should users be allowed to protect their own userpages and talk pages without help? JitteryOwl 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. A basic premise of Wikipedia is anyone can edit, so pages should only be protected to prevent disruption after an independent admin has reviewed the situation. Nobody Ent 23:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've wondered whether User pages (not talk pages) should perhaps be semi-protected, to remove the chance of vandalism by IPs. Editors other than the owner should only be editing a User page in rare circumstances, eg where it's offensive, copyvio, etc.   Pam  D  07:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Full protection due to the content dispute.
Since a situation when some article is fully protected due to a content dispute is outstanding, I think it would be misleading not to inform a reader about full protection. In my opinion, upon having seen a full protection sign an ordinary reader may conclude that the protected page contains some especially valuable information that reflects current consensus, although the situation is reverse: in actuality such a protection is not an endorsement of the current version, which is a subject of major disagreement between the users. In connection to that, I propose to add to the Content disputes section the following text:
 * "''The pp-dispute template should be added to the article that has been temporarily protected due to a content dispute; a brief description of the essence of the dispute should be added to the template.
 * The permanently protected template must be added to the article if the permanent protection was a result of sustained edit war. A brief description of the essence of the edit war must be added to the template."
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, editors should not modify policy in order to win content disputes at Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes. --Nug (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nug, please, apologise. Your attempt to interpret my motifs is a manifestation of bad faith.
 * Yes, I came here as a result of the dispute on the talk page. However, that is a common situation: our policy is being edited not by specially appointed "policy-makers", but by ordinary users, who usually come to understanding of the limitations of the policy during the process of editing. I see nothing wrong that, when I realised that there is a gap in out policy, I came here and proposed the change. Indeed, whereas the templates exist that informs a reader about full protection of the article due to the content dispute, the rules that regulate placement of those template are missing. Following common logic, those two template must be added automatically following article's full protection, and I see absolutely no reason why that should not be done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. We already have an outstanding issue of administrators frequently not adding protection templates, thus the need for automated Wikipedia bots such as Lowercase sigmabot to read the protection log and add them in. As currently written, the Available templates section does not state that adding the templates manually is mandatory. Thus in practice, any such proposal may not be followed until this issue is resolved, or these automated bots can "read" the talk pages to decipher the specifics of each content dispute. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another issue is when the "small" parameter of pp-dispute is set to "yes" (just like it is currently on the Mass killings under Communist regimes article), which renders it to just an icon at the top. Then the brief description of the dispute is hidden from view. Unlikely that many will know to hover the mouse over the padlock symbol icon to see the reason Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there is no need in bots here. Articles are protected not by bots, but by admins, and every good faith admin is supposed to perform some analysis of the essence of the dispute before making a decision about protection. Therefore, the only thing that is required from him is to describe briefly the results of this analysis. In other words, if article's protection is a result of thorough analysis of the situation, it would not be a problem of the admin to give a brief description of the issue; if the admin cannot do that, then, probably, he didn't approach to the problem seriously, and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the decision to protect the article was premature.


 * In any event, indefinite, and, especially, permanent full protection of the article due to content dispute is an outstanding situation, and such an article should be marked accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong version
The link to the wrong version essay should be restored. Although tagged as "humorous," it effectively conveys the concept that editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected. Nobody Ent 20:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have another idea. If you believe that the editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected (which is correct), why not to add this notion to the policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Paul Siebert's edit which he made to support his arguments on another page. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to spam a policy page with the links to the (metaWiki) essay, which "should not be taken seriously or literally". I suggest to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Nobody Ent that the link has its use. I remember it for at least five years, and it is a good thing it is there. Its message is sorely needed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page due to edit warring.

Needless to say, at this point, please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page. Edit warring is inappropriate. - jc37 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring? Does two minor edits + reverts over the course of three days really fall in that category? Victor Yus (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong version
The link to the wrong version essay should be restored. Although tagged as "humorous," it effectively conveys the concept that editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected. Nobody Ent 20:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have another idea. If you believe that the editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected (which is correct), why not to add this notion to the policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Paul Siebert's edit which he made to support his arguments on another page. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to spam a policy page with the links to the (metaWiki) essay, which "should not be taken seriously or literally". I suggest to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Nobody Ent that the link has its use. I remember it for at least five years, and it is a good thing it is there. Its message is sorely needed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page due to edit warring.

Needless to say, at this point, please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page. Edit warring is inappropriate. - jc37 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring? Does two minor edits + reverts over the course of three days really fall in that category? Victor Yus (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong version
The link to the wrong version essay should be restored. Although tagged as "humorous," it effectively conveys the concept that editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected. Nobody Ent 20:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have another idea. If you believe that the editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected (which is correct), why not to add this notion to the policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Paul Siebert's edit which he made to support his arguments on another page. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to spam a policy page with the links to the (metaWiki) essay, which "should not be taken seriously or literally". I suggest to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Nobody Ent that the link has its use. I remember it for at least five years, and it is a good thing it is there. Its message is sorely needed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page due to edit warring.

Needless to say, at this point, please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page. Edit warring is inappropriate. - jc37 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring? Does two minor edits + reverts over the course of three days really fall in that category? Victor Yus (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong version
The link to the wrong version essay should be restored. Although tagged as "humorous," it effectively conveys the concept that editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected. Nobody Ent 20:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have another idea. If you believe that the editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected (which is correct), why not to add this notion to the policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Paul Siebert's edit which he made to support his arguments on another page. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to spam a policy page with the links to the (metaWiki) essay, which "should not be taken seriously or literally". I suggest to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Nobody Ent that the link has its use. I remember it for at least five years, and it is a good thing it is there. Its message is sorely needed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page due to edit warring.

Needless to say, at this point, please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page. Edit warring is inappropriate. - jc37 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring? Does two minor edits + reverts over the course of three days really fall in that category? Victor Yus (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page of blocked editors
The concept of protecting talk pages of blocked users to prevent abuse dates back to 2005 Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_2, when the software changed to allow users to post unblock requests. While effective, full page protection had the unneeded side effect of preventing any auto-confirmed user from editing the page -- this was addressed by a software update in 2008. As common practice for using abusing the unblock template is to update the block, we should change the Blocked users section to read:

Blocked users
Blocked users' user pages and user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. In the event of abuse of the unblock template, disable the user's talk page access via the block feature. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected.

Nobody Ent 10:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The current protection policy contains an important safeguard against excessive duration, such as those often imposed using the block feature. Until there is a better process to manage unlocking talk pages I would prefer to see this safeguard remain. There are also still times when protection, of timed duration or not, is appropriate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Safeguard against what? Can you give examples of such situations? Nobody Ent 11:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A typical example I see is where an IP gets a long block, like a proxyblock or a schoolblock, there is one instance of abuse, then the talk page is locked up for the duration - many years in some cases. There were also some recent instances at WT:BLOCK of shorter duration blocks causing problems. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have also seen many sockpuppets use the talk page of a previous sock to continue abuse with protection being the only way to prevent it. Your proposal is basically the way things are currently anyway, actual protection is not that common-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting not protecting the page, so it seems unnecessary to have a safeguard against it being protected too long. Abuse by blocked user would be dealt with removing talk page access. I agree IP talk page access should not be of excessive duration, but shouldn't that be addressed at Blocking_IP_addresses? Nobody Ent 14:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not however written on the info page, nor is it adequately written in policy. You refer to "Abuse by blocked user would be dealt with removing talk page access", but under modern policy this would imply a talk page lock for the duration of the block, whereas the existing policy grants access sooner. Unfortunately this important policy point has not yet translated into policy for the new tool, but it does not mean the policy has gone away. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry then Nobody I don't understand what it is you want here, and I feel like you don't understand how things currently are. Currently if a blocked user abuses their talk page, they are reblocked without access to it. However if said user is an IP under a particularly long block, i.e. a school block or proxy block, and are abusing their talk page in a manner which is disruptive to the project, protection is applied instead of reblocking so as to not prevent non-abusive use of the talk page from legitimate users, since these IP's are not used by one person. Protection is also applied in cases of severe sockpuppetry, where socks are being used to repeatedly disrupt the talk page of other socks. What about the above do you want to change?-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When a user posts too many unblock requests I don't want an admin applying full protection to the user's talk page and using this archaic policy to justify such a decision. Nobody Ent 15:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, well do you have any evidence that this happens? Or that it would be a big deal if they did?-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Bishonen, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. My goal here is to make it not a big deal. Nobody Ent 17:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Was that not resolved by simply pointing to this version of the policy? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. It was resolved by Bish getting her sysop bit back and doing the right thing about a month after the protecting admin, and another at RPP, chose not to. Nobody Ent 22:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not being funny, but perhaps Bish shouldn't have desysopped, or perhaps it should have been better argued at RFP. There doesn't seem to be any fault in the policy here. The policy is very liberal about allowing unprotection where protection is no longer justified. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy shouldn't allow arbitrary protection in the first place. Nobody Ent 11:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support proposed change. The argument that the policy is clear enough falls flat in the face of the current misunderstanding regarding this. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC
Propose changing wording of blocked users section to:

Blocked users proposed change
Blocked users' user pages and user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. In the event of abuse of the unblock template, disable the user's talk page access via the block feature. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected.

per discussion above.


 * Support as proposer. Nobody Ent 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support proposed change. The argument that the policy is clear enough falls flat in the face of the current misunderstanding regarding this. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This proposal will have the opposite effect of that intended, by removing the safeguards relied on to resolve the situation described above. Unless you forbid talk page protection, which is not practical or desirable, or probably even possible, these safeguards should remain. Look, I'm not against recommending using the block feature and discouraging protection, but the proposal fails to recognise that protection does occur, and that it is sometimes desirable for a short time - sometimes even more preferable than the block feature (I've given examples). I think it also fails to recognise that policy was used to remove the protection in this case and not continue it. That is, the policy you plan to remove works. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose as rule creep I don't believe we need to codify this. I don't know what the underlying "current misunderstanding" is about but unless someone brings forth evidence of a demonstrable pattern of serious issues in this area I don't feel that anything approaching a rigid definition of when to protect any particular type of page is a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * comment. For zzuuzz and Beeblebrox's benefit. Arbitration/Requests/Case. One admin's misunderstanding has resulted in an RfAR.  Whether this is a good reason to change the policy (perhaps all it needs is a tweak to the wording, as it is plain that the issue has arisen because Jc37 thinks that the policy says that the talkpages of indeffblocked editors should be protected indefinitely). There are certainly good grounds to protect such talkpages on occasion - gravedancing and sock tea parties are fairly common occurrences and not conductive to creating an encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In most situations, we should be able to rely on admins to exercise discretion in applying protection to user and user talk pages of blocked users. It is quite reasonable to lock down some user talk pages if, say, they are being used for WP:OUTING a blocked user. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. We operate a very clear principle on Wikipedia: anyone can edit. The exceptions to that are meant to be few and far-between. There is an agreed corollary to that: we don't take pre-emptive action unless there is a both a demonstrated need and other measures have failed. This underlies our RFPP policy, and means that articles and talk pages are not protected unless there is a visible need - and even then we prefer to stop disruption at source by blocking the author where possible. It should be the norm for talk pages of blocked users to remain unprotected to allow other editors to communicate if needed. Unless there is disruption that demonstrably cannot be resolved at the source of disruption, there should be no other need to prevent ordinary editors from editing that talk page. This amendment makes clear that principle, and will help admins to avoid taking pre-emptive action where no need exists. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the policy to address some concerns and misunderstandings - more of an update really. The policy now says you should try the re-block feature instead. I hope it's a bit clearer. There will always be occasions when protection is necessary. We may as well have a good policy for removing the protection, which is what we have now. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I support your (zzuuzz's) edits as of this time stamp. Though that said, I think that the section is currently a bit too open to subjective interpretation. I'll see if I can come up with an alternative. - jc37 23:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's only under the most unusual and extreme circumstances that a user's talk page should be locked ... so that nobody (other than admins) can post to it. Where in our policies does it say that blocked users should be sent to Coventry?  Do we really think it's appropriate that nobody should be allowed to talk to blocked users?  What about messages relating to articles which they may have edited, which other users might be able to respond productively to? "You're not allowed to talk to User:X" doesn't foster collaboration, does it? I can understand why a user could sensibly be blocked from their own talk page, if whatever they are doing is genuinely disruptive / abusive / whatever ... but then again, nobody else is forced to read their talk page, are they?  But preventing anyone else from posting to that user's talk is draconian.  Pesky  (talk ) 07:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Partial support: indefinitely blocked editors should be able to edit their user talk pages to request unblocking. The cases of abuse should be treated with short-term protection (probably starting from 7 days and incrementing by 1 day with every case of abuse). "User:" counterparts should be replaced with template notification of block and protected in all cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Abuse by who, the blocked editor or others? Nobody Ent 11:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

More evidence: It's standard protocol to fully protect a indefinitely banned/blocked editor's userpage Nobody Ent 14:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

wrong version
The link to the wrong version essay should be restored. Although tagged as "humorous," it effectively conveys the concept that editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected. Nobody Ent 20:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have another idea. If you believe that the editors requesting FPP in a content dispute should not expect to have their preferred version protected (which is correct), why not to add this notion to the policy? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Paul Siebert's edit which he made to support his arguments on another page. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to spam a policy page with the links to the (metaWiki) essay, which "should not be taken seriously or literally". I suggest to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with Nobody Ent that the link has its use. I remember it for at least five years, and it is a good thing it is there. Its message is sorely needed. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page due to edit warring.

Needless to say, at this point, please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page. Edit warring is inappropriate. - jc37 07:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring? Does two minor edits + reverts over the course of three days really fall in that category? Victor Yus (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

White lock
The "white lock" looks grey to me, and is confusable with the silver one. The fancy 3D colouring doesn't really help here! 82.113.133.21 (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite similar to the blue one as well. Either the color needs to be changed, a whiter "white" needs to be used, or something. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"deprecating protected titles" and new users
A lot of pages are currently creation-protected (salted) with a reason similar to "Deprecating protected titles," which is rather meaningless. Fixing all of them would be very time consuming and probably couldn't be automated, but it might be nice to add a mention of it here, so that new users are not intimidated by it. I'm thinking something like this, in the WP:SALT section:
 * Before MediaWiki provided creation protection, many pages were "protected" via a system called protected titles. That system was deprecated and is now unused.  Many titles were transitioned from the old system to the new one with the reason "deprecating protected titles"; users can look up the "real" reason at Protected titles/Historical, but it is generally not necessary to do this before requesting unprotection, especially since many of the titles listed there lack reasons entirely.

I think it's important that we reduce our jargon usage in places new users could encounter it, and page creation is one such place. As this isn't really prescriptive, I almost added it without asking, but the last sentence gave me pause. -- N Y  Kevin   05:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in three hours
Just a reminder that WP:PC goes live in a little less than three hours. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

removed reviewing section
I just removed the section discussing the reviewing process. This page should be focused on protection, what it is and when to apply it. We have a well written separate page on reviewing -- reviewers should be expected be familiar with it rather than relying on a summary here. Additionally, having the same information in more than one place makes maintenance more problematic, as changes to the main reviewing page may not get reflected here unless someone things of it. NE Ent 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well written or not, the reviewing page is sadly out of date. In updating it, I think I can use some of the text you removed here. Additional eyes appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandaized? Help
I have been editing and writing some good facts But it says I am vandalising wikipedia and I have 1 Chance left. Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan doust (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Shayan doust, I have replied to this query on your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Propose moving PENDING CHANGES and COMPARISON TABLE up below semi-protection
This test edit shows what I have in mind.

As an alternative, this is a version with the comparison table left at the bottom.

Any serious objections to going ahead with the first option?

''After making these edits I saw some fixups needed in both. I'll do those when I make this change "for real."''  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Serious objection here . It might be helpful if you'd start by explaining why you think the change is a good idea. Rivertorch (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. Full protection, semi-protection, and pending changes all 1) control who can EDIT an article and 2) are generally turned on or off at the discretion of administrators.  They logically go together.  Create, and move protection control the namespace.  Upload protection is for files, not articles.  Permanent and Office protection are not at the discretion of administrators.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see the logic now. It would be logical, in a sense, but it would make for a somewhat disjointed section. The table is full-width, so the text can't run alongside it, and it carries the same level heading as the other subsections, and I think it might be confusing as well as looking odd graphically to stick it in the middle there. I'm not sure. Anyway, serious objection withdrawn; mild objection taking its place. I'm curious how others see it. Rivertorch (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback protection?
On WP:RPP it says you can request for feedback protection, and I see no section where it says anything about Feedback Protection. Also I bet that feature is rarely used I think it still should be mentioned. Cheers,  Jay Jay Talk to me 02:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd never used it before this evening when I tried to execute JayJay's request on 1272. Does this feature even work? Mackensen (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be working, IP's can't post but regular users that are not auto-confirmed can.  Jay Jay What did I do? 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, after I removed and re-added protection. I think there's a bug in the interface and I'm going to report it after some testing. Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

PC1 padlock
Could the WP:WHITELOCK be changed to WP:YELLOWLOCK? This is the situation. The template pp-pc1 is not as visible (refering to its colour) as other pp-templates (compare File:Padlock-silver-light.svg with File:Padlock-red.svg). We have some few disponible padlocks (listed here), and they are the gold one, the dark blue one and the pink one (the other padlock have similar colours or are decorated). The problem with the blue one is that it can be confused with the WP:BLUELOCK, and the third one with the WP:PURPLELOCK. So although the yellow one is coloured gold (and it could be confused with WP:GOLDLOCK), their difference is visible: full-protection lock is darker.

As stated in a section above, it "is confusable with the [semi-protection template]". I don't know if the colours are chosen by consensus or arbitrarily, so I'm asking here if it would be possible to replace it. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see comment above about the white lock appearing grey or silver. I think a 2D look would work better. 31.52.81.111 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Scholarships
...are given to approx. 20%, not one third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.238.170 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

one direction band should be changed
okay, someone just really change the dentition of band to  male singing group as while they know how to play musicial instruments, i have yet to seem them actually play them on a regular basis. maybe i can do that

my computer's dictonary defines a band as this: a group of musicians who play together, in particular • a small group of musicians and vocalists who play pop, jazz, or rock music : the band's last two albums | a rock band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twishadowhunter (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 January 2013‎
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Protection policy/Archive 14. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

New target for padlock icon link
I have presently created Help:Protected pages as a simple reader help page to explain page protection. I want to have that that page used as a target for padlock icon link instead of Protection policy since the latter is not really suitable for readers. Readers are not editors and they are not interested in editing so a simple overview is all that is required. There is a hatnote on the page for those who do want further information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ICP
Tech N9ne and hopsin were both in the song skreem! on ICPs album the mighty deathpop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrace13 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As it says in boldface at the top, "This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages." Please open a discussion at the talk page of the relevant article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is vandalism grounds for semi-protection, but incompetence is not?
Protection is supposed to be based upon "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". So, why is damage resulting from vandalism considered actionable, but not damage resulting from incompetence? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Example? -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, please never mind. I suspect "incompetence" is a non-starter here--I will try "disruptive" in future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If an individual is being disruptive, they will often end up in a block. If a group are being disruptive, then yes, article protection is often applied. Resolute 02:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New York is a Middle Atlantic state in the north-eastern United States.

New York is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario, the Canadian province of Ontario (NW) and the Canadian province of Quebec (N).

It is sometimes called New York State when there is need to distinguish it from New York City, the largest city both in the state and in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrubona (talk • contribs) 12:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought about Pending Changes level two
I'm currently floating an idea at the chocolate factory about using PC2 on a subset of WP:HRT. Since this is the protection policy I thought I'd drop a note here soliciting input. Regards, Crazynast 11:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013: Singles Discography Edits
I think the comment here applies to Irish_Singles_Chart and has been moved to Talk:Irish_Singles_Chart NE Ent 11:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please change the image at "Pending changes protected (level 1)" in the table on the right of this article.
It would be more appropriate to have a lock, but with a line through it, splitting the orange from the silver part, showing there are two levels of this protection at Pending changes protected.

Example

Sorry for the external image, I am new to (contributing to) Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Fluffy-kittens-26 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * At the moment only pending changes (level one) is approved for use, so there is no reason (in fact it might be confusing) to display the level two lock symbol. When and if PC2 is approved we can add it to the list of images. Regarding the image itself, we can only display images which have been uploaded to either Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons, see the image upload wizard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove "uncontroversial" from the policy.
Having the word "uncontroversial" in this policy has repeatedly caused problems. The word is ill-defined in the WP context. Everyone believes their own edits to be uncontroversial. If a page is fully protected, it should be protected from editing by all editors, including admins. Admins should not carry on routinely editing a fully protected page while everyone else is locked out. The changes requested below are based directly on this post made by administrator Bwilkins, which I believe reflects the accepted and long-standing interpretation of this policy.

Please replace these sentences:
 * Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page (or at another appropriate forum) for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes.

with these:


 * Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on its talk page, or at another appropriate forum for discussion. Placing the  template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators.  Administrators must not edit fully protected pages, except to implement consensus reached on the talk page, or to remove policy-violating text or images.

Please delete this sentence.
 * Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree - if an admin sees (for example) a spelling error on a protected page, they should be permitted to correct it without any time-wasting discussion. Victor Yus (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing article clearly highlights the type of controversy that such seemingly minor "uncontroversial" edits can cause. IP is quite right about the obscurity of the line between controversial and uncontroversial edits; using your example of spelling error, changing American spelling to British spelling or vice versa on an American-British article can stirred unfathomable amount of tension between two sides in an already hostile environment, given that the page was locked due to content disputes. If actual spelling or grammar errors exists, admins like everyone else can wait a few hours for the article to be unprotected before editing - something as minor as an actual spelling error can wait. As I said at ANI, why poke the tiger (and risk causing further tension over something so minor?) YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that administrators had enough judgment to know what's potentially going to provoke tension, and what's not. I suppose they should err on the side of caution, but remember that Wikipedia benefits from any obvious corrections they may make (which might otherwise not get made, since the admin might forget about them and no-one else might notice them for a long time), so it would be counterproductive to prohibit such actions. Also the correction might be uncontroversial but major - in that case it's highly desirable that it be corrected as soon as possible, particularly since pages like this are likely also to be being read by a lot of people, so any substantial error will have a significant cost in terms of misinformed readers. Victor Yus (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless admins can mind-read, it's impossible to determine what's controversial and what's not. Again, I'll use the aforementioned article as an example, no one would have expected there to be a such a reaction to the edits that several admins made and yet a thread concerning those changes remains one of the longest ANI threads displayed at the moment, with a majority of editors supporting the cessation of non-vital editing until the page is unprotected. Unless the errors constitute a BLP violation, it should be retained or at least discussed on the talk page before actual changes are made. If the errors on fully-protected articles, which generally were previously semi-protected, are major, it's assumed the erorrs were caused by editors trying to push a certain POV, hence any changes to the content will undoubtedly be controversial(I can explain a variety of reasons why it would be but I hope you get my point without me doing so). If need-be, the pre-edit war revision should be restored, however admins should not take the liberty of adjusting or "fixing" errors unless of course it constitutes a BLP vio. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I remain of the opposite opinion. Long ANI threads aren't a big deal; wrong information on Wikipedia is. (Even if it's not defamatory to anyone.) Victor Yus (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from but given that most fully-protected articles are well sourced due to the appealing and controversial nature of the topic, and that the editors that edit those articles are familiar with the policies of Wikipedia, including WP:V, WP:RS and so forth, errors if any, are made by those who deliberately choose to misinterpret sources or view them from a different perspective to promote a certain viewpoint thus such "errors" can be considered controversial. I doubt any of the errors on fully protected articles are blatant(apart from spelling errors and grammar but as said that's minor). YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Terms such as uncontroverisal and major are incredibly subjective. The only way to know whether or not a change is controversial is to suggest it on the talk page. Uncontroversial, beneficial changes, be they major or minor, will quickly get consensus.


 * Admins editing through protection is a recurrent problem. When it happens, it's seldom to correct typing mistakes. If an admin wants to fix a spelling mistake, all that's needed is message on the talk page: "I intend to replace x with y. I'll go ahead in 5 minutes, unless anyone objects". The spelling mistake argument is really very tangential to this policy, because fixing spelling mistakes is rarely an issue with fully protected articles. If it really does bother you, I wouldn't object to modifying the proposal to include "or correct spelling mistakes". 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Spelling mistakes bother me less than uncontroversial factual changes (say, correcting a wrong date), where wrong information is going to be read by someone and (quite possibly) believed by them. We shouldn't be putting any needless obstacles in the way of anyone who is willing and able to improve Wikipedia by correcting such errors. If anyone has a genuine objection to such a change that has been made, they can always say so, and then the admin will revert. And if a non-admin spots such an error first, they can say so as well, and hopefully an admin will come along and make the required change. We shouldn't allow edit-warring over some controversial issues in the article to get in the way (any more than it has to) of regular uncontroversial improvement of the article. Victor Yus (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The same arguments apply to dates as to spelling mistakes. We can't know in advance whether or not changing a date will be controversial. The suggested rewording wouldn't delay the modification more than 5 minutes or so. And it's not as though these articles are riddled with spelling and date mistakes. So we're looking at, say, 1 in 10, or 1 in 20 protected articles containing an incorrect date or a spelling mistake for 5 minutes longer than it otherwise would have. We should also to take into account that prohibiting changes without consensus will prevent the introduction of new errors, that otherwise might have been added into the article. It's entirely possible that pausing momentarily on fast-moving article will result in fewer errors finding their way into the article in the first place. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It's clear from the above that the original request here was not uncontroversial, so by the arguments put forth by  it should not be amended at this stage. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I take it you'll implement the change, if appropriate, when the consensus becomes clear. There are three voices here, to date. Two in favour, one against. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Count me as opposed. Admins should be able to make simple corrections (spelling, grammar, obvious typos, wikimarkup issues) without seeking consensus. Errors of that sort are everywhere (I've found them on FAs the day before they hit the main page); articles on controversial topics have them, too. Rivertorch (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How about if we added exactly that to the policy: Administrators must not edit fully protected pages, except to implement consensus reached on the talk page, remove policy-violating text or images, or  make simple corrections (spelling, grammar, obvious typos, wikimarkup issues)? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, vagueness sometimes can be a good thing. Unless we can think of every possible example—and I don't suppose we can—it's better not to enumerate the examples at all. Otherwise, we're setting ourselves up for wikilawyering nuisance complaints toward admins who make simple corrections in good faith. Is there an actual problem that this proposal is designed to resolve or is this the proverbial solution looking for a problem? Rivertorch (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, on the Boston bombings page an editor was unhappy with the thrust of several edits made by another editor. I don't know who was right, and it's not important. The second editor was an admin. He was convinced that his edits were fine. Once the page was protected he could have continued adding his preferred changes, which he believed to be uncontroversial. Actually, I don't think he did in this instance, but there have been several instances of that kind of thing, and worse, in the past. That is why Bwilkins made the post that he did. It is also why RegentsPark reverted himself as soon as he realised he'd edited through protection. Most admins know that the accepted reading of the policy is the one Bwilkins posted, and the one I'm suggesting we make explicit in the policy. Allowing one set of editors to carry on editing an article while everyone else is excluded is not what Wikipedia is about. It is also a sure fire way to raise the temperature at articles which are often already smouldering. I think, essentially, it comes down to whether or not you're happy to see admins carry on writing an article when everyone else is excluded from it. Personally, I'm not, but there seem to people here who are, which is fine. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What you've described at Boston Marathon bombings doesn't sound problematic. In fact, it would appear that things worked out rather well. (Don't get me started re that article, the likes of which we ought never to see if this is indeed an encyclopedia and not some sort of wiki devoted to breaking news.) It seems to me that as long as consensus and policy are respected, it shouldn't make any difference whether the people who make the actual edits to an article are in possession of the mop. On a fully protected article, non-admins' input isn't excluded; admins and other contributors all get to participate in discussion, propose wording, and have their say about what actually makes it into the article. If we trust certain contributors enough to give them extra tools, we should trust them enough to make wise decisions about unilaterally changing content to protected articles. Occasionally, one will screw up, but that's not the end of the world. On the rare occasion when one of them screws up and won't back down, that's a serious breach of policy that gets dealt with. I really don't see how changing the wording here would make such events even more rare than they already are or help resolve them more effectively when they do happen. Rivertorch (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that we're not going to change one another's minds here. The notion that when we hand an editor a mop we also hand over responsibility for modifying content is anathema to me. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to change my mind, but we do seem to be approaching this from very different perspectives. As I see it, the ultimate responsibility for modifying content is held by the community. On a given page that's fully protected, the community is represented by everyone who shows up and contributes in good faith to the discussion, and the only added responsibility of any sysop who is present is to carry out the will of the community (per local consensus and per policy). I think we probably agree that admins should not have any more say in determining content than anyone else—that's what I think, anyway. Should they be entrusted with a greater share of the responsibility for weighing arguments and judging consensus? Yeah. Someone has to fill that role, unless we're willing to accept total anarchy. Rivertorch (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to " unilaterally changing content". As I say, my main point is that admins should not be writing an article when it nobody else can touch it. It's okay to fix typos and the like, but nothing more. The policy should say that. I can't say more than I've already said to convince you, so I'll leave it there. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I counted 8 support 6 oppose at ANI, which is not exactly a clear consensus (not that it will affect this discussion). Anyways, Village pump (policy) is an excellent place to raise awareness of this thread. To be honest, it's immensely rare for an article to get fully protected; either way, users won't be affected that much. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Typofixes don't need a 5-minute delay. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs to be modified. Yes, there will always be a few dumb admins out there who ignore that advice and edit through protection in a substantive way, and there will always be wikilawyers who want to argue that correcting a typo is controversial. Changing the wording is not going to fix that. By the way, for those concerned that there are or could be two classes of users in this regard, you should be aware of this proposal which would create a third class of "regular" users who could nonetheless edit even through full protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So on that page you wrote "While [full protection] technically limits editing only to admins, the real effect and intent is to stop any editing, admin or no, until a consensus is clear.". Which is exactly what Bwlikins wrote, exactly what almost all admins know to be the case, and exactly what I'm proposing we add to the article. Don't you find it odd that of all of the admins who know that to be the "real intent" of the policy, none of them actually want it in the policy? And all this stuff about fixing typos is a non-issue, as you must know. Let me ask you a straightforward question. Do you think that it is okay for admins to continue to make non-controversial edits to a protected article for as long as it is protected? By non-controversial I mean significant, well-sourced, in-policy edits that would likely find consensus if they were suggested on the talk page80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the "real intent" of the policy (though I'm not sure how a collection of 0s and 1s can intend anything), then it's warped. Stopping all editing is an undesirable side effect of page protection, which can be mitigated by allowing uncontroversial changes still to be made. (To me, non-controversial means more than just "would likely find consensus", I think it means "would almost without a shadow of a doubt find consensus, without even the need to discuss".) Victor Yus (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the admins who occasionally makes edits to fully protected pages, and almost invariably when I do so it is to fix a typo. Perhaps I'm unusual in this, but I'm not aware of any study on this with a meaningful sample size. As for the point about American English, I very much doubt that any admin would make the mistake of shifting an article from one variant of English to another, in my experience people who do that are usually newbies who haven't yet learned that this site is consistent at the article level rather than the site level. When if ever has an admin made that mistake when editing a protected page?
 * As for taking all such proposals to talk; If we need to change policy on this then we need to do so in an unbureaucratic manner, and discussing even the most minor of typos on the talkpage would be very bureaucratic and rather slow. If a change genuinely needs discussion then one can't just give that five minutes as doing so excludes people in different timezones or who only edit for one evening a week. It is reasonable to expect admins to read the protection rationale and if necessary the talkpage, and not to use our tools to further one side of a contentious debate over content. Perhaps what is needed is an injunction on admins that when we edit a protected page to self revert edits to protected pages if any editor says that the edit was controversial, or a reminder that when a page is fully protected because of an edit war not to edit the section or sections that are involved in that edit war in such a way as to take sides in that edit war. But perhaps the best solution is to leave the word uncontroversial in the policy and in the isolated incidents when an admin makes a controversial edit to a fully protected page to go and discuss it with them.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't exactly say admins were prone to making such errors, I was trying to convey to Victor Yus that it's extremely difficult to determine what's controversial and what's not. But yes, I concur that the admins are unlikely to make such mistakes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, all of this talk of typos is obscuring the issue. I've said repeatedly that I'd be happy for the policy to say that typo fixes are okay. See my post at 14:52 above. Both Bwilkins and Beeblebrox have said that the real intent of this policy that no change other than typos should be made without consensus. That has long been the accepted view. I'm suggesting that the policy be modified to reflect that view. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance about typofixes. I'm not sure that I agree with BWilkins and Beeblebrox on this, but I would be very strict as to what I saw as uncontroversial. To add another scenario, if an admin checks on the talkpage, sees that the mountaineering section of a particular mountain is controversial and the reason for the protection; Would you consider that an expansion of the article's sections on that same mountain's Biology, Geology or mythology would be contentious, or OK provided the admin left a talkpage note assuring people that he'd self revert if anyone found his edits contentious?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the mountain, my view is that the admin should not edit the article at all while it is fully protected, other than to fix typos. Having a small group of editors--no matter how well intentioned--continue to edit an article while everyone else has to stand by and watch is just not WP is about. Regarding "uncontroversial", you would be very strict about what you see as controversial, but others wouldn't. Or perhaps they might consider that they were being strict, while others didn't. It's such a woolly term. The policy should say exactly what it means. As far as I can see just about everyone who has commented here agrees that admins should do nothing more than fix typos when an article is protected. But for some unfathomable reason, nobody seems to want the policy to say that. Anyway, bedtime for me. I'll drop by again tomorrow. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial is not necessarily that woolly. If the edit war is over one particular section and you are editing another section then it is reasonable to assume you are being uncontroversial unless someone explains otherwise, and uncontroversial ceases to be woolly if any editor has the right to go to the admin's page, explain why their edit was controversial and ask them to revert it. As for the small group of editors argument, I'm one of those who holds to the view that all clueful regulars should be admins. If some clueful regulars are being shut out of something because they aren't admins, the solution is to appoint them as admins.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To me it's woolly. It's woollier than woolly rhinoceros. Nuclear Warfare thinks it means you can carry on making edits which shape the article. Beeblebrox, Dennis and Bwilkins think it means no editing until a consensus is clear. You think it means you can edit some parts of the article but not other parts. Victor thinks it means edits which without a shadow of a doubt would find consensus. It's woolly. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Our experience with the fully protected Boston page is that a boatload of editors will invariably jump all over any admin who thinks that "Typofixes don't need a 5-minute delay" and edits a fully protected article without checking in about the edit on the talk page first. Fully protected widely used templates, no problem, but not articles that are locked down. We need to remember that admins are given special tools, but they are not special, and have no special permissions. They are our janitors, not our lords. Apteva (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that an admin shouldn't edit through full protection except for obvious fixes like typos, or to remove clear BLP violations or to revert edits made previously that were clearly against the talk page consensus, OR to add changes that the community has reached consensus on at the talk page. In other words, in an administrative capacity only, since admin are not "super-editors". I've bitten a few heads off for editing through protection for personal reasons (format, content, etc.) and would if anyone pointed it out on a talk page I'm clerking when the article is full protected. I don't think policy change is the answer, common sense is, and the occasional "reminder" when an admin breaks that trust. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 02:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not policy change. It's tightening the wording in order that the policy say what it means. You shouldn't have to write "My understanding is....". You should be able to write "The policy states...". "Uncontroversial" is hopelessly vague, and permits admins to carry on writing articles which others cannot touch. On the Boston bombings article, NuclearWarfare wrote "The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content.". I believe that full protection should do just that. From your remarks, so do you. The current wording allows either interpretation. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think probably the best test for non-controversiality is "if anyone objects". The norm should be that admins can do what their judgment tells them is going to be uncontroversial (whether off their own backs, or at the suggestion of other editors on the talk page), but if anyone else objects, then they must be prepared to revert. (I mean substantial objections to the substance of the edit, not mere formal objections to the fact that the admin is editing at all.) This way no-one is given extra editing "privileges" over anyone else - we are just placing a bit of trust in admins to make a temporary judgment as to what is likely to trigger no objections, which in most cases is a common sense call, and anway won't do any lasting damage if occasionally they get the judgment wrong. Victor Yus (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "if anyone objects" test seems fair but in reality it can lead to a plethora of issues. Admins may not be willing to revert what they believe is an improvement to the article or may in some cases shove IAR in your face and tell you to deal with it. Further disputes regarding such edits may lead to longer full-protection periods and that will simply lead to further discontent. I understand that in some people's mind, they perceive admins as PhD professors with a wealth of knowledge and wisdom but far too often I've seen sub-par admins slide through the cracks. Increasing restrictions on the types of edits admins can make on fully protected articles prevents the abuse of power. Yes of course, it's the exception that does abuse their powers but why run into the risk of such an event occurring when we are able to prevent it? YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly we can't prevent it because they'll shove IAR in your face anyway; and as to "why run the risk" - well, because by doing so, we enable changes to be made that in >95% of cases are going to be improvements to Wikipedia - and that's a Good Thing. Victor Yus (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In responses to the former: touche but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do all we can to address underlying problems not associated with IAR; as for the latter, what if users object and admins refuse to revert - that's the main point I'm trying to get across here in response to your suggestion. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If another editor has a reasonable objection to an edit then the edit is no longer an uncontroversial one. So no need to change the policy, but sometimes there may be a need to enforce it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be getting ahead of myself here but won't enforcing an unclear policy lead to disputes, bureaucracy and ultimately discontentment? Not all fully protected articles are high-trafficked articles that are regularly patrolled by multiple admins. If users oppose a certain edit made by an admin, they may need to take the issue to DRN and maybe even ANI, if the admin is using IAR as the basis, to resolve the issue, given that the admin is adamant and refuse to revert controversial changes. As I said before it's rare for articles to get fully protected let alone disputed over, however if such an event arises, it's better to be prepared than otherwise. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is no more unclear than prod policy, and that works quite well. The only time that this would need escalation would be when an admin refuses to self revert because in their view their edit was uncontentious. I would anticipate that such incidents would be rare.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IAR should not be used as an excuse to edit through full protection. We are in danger of getting two classes of editor.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

 * On the Boston bombings article, admin NuclearWarfare carried on editing the article as though it were unprotected. He wrote: "The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content.". On the same talk page admin Bwilkins wrote "...admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images, or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS...". Those are two diametrically opposed interpretations of this policy. Admin Beeblebrox wrote the "...real effect and intent is to stop any editing, admin or no, until a consensus is clear.". Admin DennisBrown said something similar. Most admins (with the odd exception, like NuclearWarfare) know the accepted interpretation is that only typos and consensus-backed changes should be made. Unfortunately, they don't want that "real intent" of policy included in the policy page. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy says "uncontroversial" in two different places. Had the intent been to include only typos, I assume that's what it would have said. Victor Yus (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You and I have a different interpretations of the policy. That's fine. What I find objectionable is that most admins know that the accepted interpretation is that only consensus-backed changes and typos should be added. Admins have stated that they support that interpretation. Yet those same admins are arguing against having that interpretation made explicit in the policy.. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy is that uncontentious edits are allowed. There are some editors including some admins who would like to tighten that policy, others including myself see no need to change the policy. There is a current live example of an admin editing a protected article, but as their critics aren't citing diffs it is unclear to me whether they are saying that that admin is making uncontentious edits and for some reason that isn't yet clear to me they want this to stop; Or they consider those edits contentious and in breach of this policy. If the edits in question are contentious then I see no need to change the policy, if they are uncontentious then I see even less reason to change the policy.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncontentious means different things to different people. To NuclearWarfare it means admins may continue to make article-shaping edits. To Beeblebrox, DennisBrown, and Bwilkins, it means only typos and consensus-backed edits. To you it means you can edit just certain parts of the article. To others it means something else. The policy needs to be made clear. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My position and that of NuclearWarfare may not be far apart- he hasn't yet opined in this debate. If the reason that an article has been fully protected is for example that people are editwarring as to whether or not to name certain individuals, then other edits, even "article-shaping edits" may well be uncontentious. In my view the litmus test is whether anyone goes to the admin concerned and explains why they think such an edit is contentious, and doesn't get a self revert or adequate explanation from the admin concerned. If you add a section to an article on a mountain covering the flora and fauna, only to have another editor explain that the poaching of said flora and fauna is the true reason why the mountaineering section is contentious, then a self revert is appropriate and shows that the policy is being followed. As for the idea that uncontroversial should be interpreted as "only typos and consensus-backed edits" I would accept both as examples of uncontroversial edits, but they aren't the only examples. For example there are various living people whose articles are fully protected. If one of those were to die would there be a need to get consensus to change the article to reflect that? In my view if reliable sources said that someone had died it would be an uncontroversial edit to change their article accordingly.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Personally, I'm implacably opposed to admins continuing to write an article while others excluded from it. The point is, the policy needs to be clear one way or another. You would accept, I imagine, that "uncontroversial" is causing the policy to be interpreted in widely different ways (compare your view to Beeblbrox's: "...intent is to stop any editing, admin or no, until a consensus is clear." ). That shouldn't happen. The policy needs to be made clear. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those that raised concerns on NW's page and on the article talk page, (and at ANI i think) abuot this issue. As far as I'm concerned, an admin should only edit through protection to remove something from the article that's potentially harmful to living person, basically to enforce BLP. This is particularly the case, in my view, on high profile articles, and when the protection has only just been applied. I have worries about admins doing anything to a protected article without consensus. Ged  UK  11:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm of the same mind. We need to make it clear that "uncontroversial" doesn't mean any edit that they "think" is okay. JOJ Hutton  12:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of my edits to fully protected pages are straightforward typo fixes, and several of the other participants in this debate are happy to treat typo fixes as uncontroversial. What do you think of the proposal that it works somewhat like prod, if any editor says that a particular edit is controversial then the admin self reverts and takes it to the talkpage?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I had not commented here before because I was not informed of this thread until this morning when WSC posted a note on my talk page. My position remains the same. Edits to a fully protected page that no one disagrees with for non-wikiphilosophical reasons are fine regardless if the page is protected or not. I find it most telling that despite the hubbub, no one has pointed to a single edit to a fully protected page by any administrator that they disagreed with for a non-wikiphilosophical reason that was not subsequently addressed immediately. The bigger issue here is simply the overuse of full page protection, especially on high profile articles. If you notice, along the same time as I made my edits to Boston Marathon bombings, I also asked the protecting administrator to remove page protection. NW ( Talk ) 17:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That an arb cannot see the problem with admins fully protecting a page and then continuing to edit that page is kinda worrying, but not at all surprising. The same can be said for your dismissal of anything pertaining to "Wikiphilosophy". Anyhow, when you read Bwilkins admonition to admins:


 * For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images, or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage.


 * which was prominent on the talk page under the heading "Full Protection", did you simply decide to ignore it, or were you editing the article without bothering to read the talk page? Having now read his post, what do you think of it? What do you think of RegentsPark's decision to revert himself has soon he realised he'd edited through protection? Does he pay too much attention to "Wikiphilosophy"? Would it have been better for him to simply carry on editing along with you? Following your preferred interpretation of the policy, you, he and about 5 or 6 other admins would have been writing the article, while everyone else just stood around and watched. Are you okay with that scenario? For the record, exactly what do you feel the policy permits you to do? From what you've written above it seems that admins should go ahead and edit protected articles in anyway they like, unless they think someone might disagree with the edit (and objections on "Wikiphilosphical" grounds are not allowed). Is that correct? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It really just boils down to a matter of respect for the ordinary wiki editor and whether admins view themselves as a higher caste of editor or the just a mop weilding janitor. Of course any position disagrees with can be condescendingly dismissed as "wikiphilosophical" but, in fact, wiki philosophy is not just an important thing, it's the most important thing. Some heretofore unseen typo lingering transiently on a page does not significantly harm the encyclopedia, but treating the bulk of the editing community as second class citizens does. Webservers are commodity items -- the most signficant resource Wikipedia has is editors. The administrators cannot actually write the encyclopedia; the bulk of that work properly falls upon  active users.

Accordingly, uncontroversial should be removed as a hint to the less clueful editors with sysop bits. (The more clueful ones will realize when the circumstances where not a bureaucracy occurs even without "uncontroversial" in the policy text.) NE Ent 21:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider the making of genuinely uncontroversial changes (whether typos or obvious factual corrections) very much a janitorial action. Admins can make such changes on their own initiative, or at the suggestion of others. It doesn't make them into a higher caste, except in as much as they have the "mop" and others don't, which is an inescapable matter of fact. Also, of course admins can do this sort of thing anyway without the blessing of the policy, on IAR grounds, but forcing them to apparently "violate the policy" in this way would lead to a great deal more objections and arguments. Victor Yus (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that admins often revert to the WP:WRONGVERSION when we apply full-protection. Usually FP is added when there's significant edit-warring, BLP issues, etc.  There's no way in hell that an admin should be derided for protecting a version that they feel comfortable is "the least offensive version".  In many ways, some people would consider such reversion as editing through protection  (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your post to the talk page was very explicit. It was promptly ignored by NuclearWarfare and several other admins. You made not a peep. How come? I suspect that had a similar warning been ignored by non-admins, you would have had plenty to say. Am I right? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I asked you at AN/I whether you support this change, which is based on your post. You did not reply. How come? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is there a reason that we can't use the definition from controversy? Does Wikipedia need to write its own definition?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no problem. Provided we're talking about the edits by NW on the 19th, just before fp was lifted, he did nothing wrong. A couple of uncontroversial updates and a lot of formatting clean-up. All good for the project, our mission, and the betterment of humanity. I can understand standers-by, wanting to go at the article, feeling resentful that NW could do that and they couldn't, but meh. As somebody above suggested, we have grey areas that demand judgment. We deliberately don't over-prescribe behaviour here because we expect people to exercise good judgment. If a cabal of like-minded admins had swooped on the article and twisted it to their will, that's a problem. If one admin had done that, that's a problem. They'd be demonstrating poor judgment, and would deserve desysopping. That didn't happen. No problem. Sorry, I'd have said less if I had more time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone in this thread is agreed that minor fixes such as typos, mark-up, etc. are fine. That's not the issue. Some people, including NuclearWarfare, feel that admins should continue writing, changing, and "shaping" the article, even though it is protected. If that's your view too, fine. But this is not about making minor fixes. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is, his edits were minor and/or uncontroversial, and I think fp was raised shortly afterwards. Whether your interpretation of the purpose of protection, or NW's, is correct doesn't matter. No harm was done. Good was done. He exercised good judgment. If an instance arises of an admin exercising poor judgment in a case like this, we can reprimand or desysop them. If it happens a lot, we can be more prescriptive in the policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why we must wait here like sitting ducks until harm has been done to the project. By then, the harm could result in repercussions ranging from mild annoyance to losing a significant number of valuable editors. This entire project is already on a slippery slop that's potentially heading towards disaster, the last thing we need is more harm in any form. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's long been accepted that no changes should be made to a protected article without consensus. The only exceptions are BLP concerns, and possibly typos. The policy should say that. NuclearWarfare and others are arguing against having the policy say that. They interpret the current wording as allowing them to continue writing the article while it is protected, and they want it to stay that way. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording clearly allows them to do that and I think it has for some time. (Anybody know how long?) And it seems to work fine. Full-protection is vanishingly rare and brief, and it's comforting to know that there are a few clueful people around who can obviously be trusted to make the occasional uncontroversial update to a rapidly evolving topic through protection. I'm sure if you'd challenged any of NW's edits on content-policy grounds, being the reasonable person he is, he would have done the right thing.
 * I understand that one day an admin or group of admins may fp a page just so they can exercise a veto; or edit a protected page controversially or against consensus. Can you ping me when that happens, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There you go: "The next person who edits this through full protection should turn their mop in with it.". Is that controversial enough for you? The page the admins were edit warring over was WP:BLP, no less. Could you ping me if it ever becomes a simple matter to get people to agree to write a policy in terms that reflect the accepted practice? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Three years ago; on a policy page. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the current wording basically aimed at permitting edit protecteds to be implemented? If that is so, then we can say that even admins should be using edit protected, once consensus is established for a change, or if the change is non-controversial. This would allow getting a second opinion on whether the change really is non-controversial. Some exceptions may need defining (BLP, copyright, minor spelling/grammar and format fixing), but basically, everything that isn't essential (legal issues) or trivially and obviously non-controversial (spelling etc) should get a second opinion, via fulfilling an edit request. Rd232 talk 13:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By extension, an autoconfirmed user who wished to edit a semi-prot page (for anything other than BLP, copyright etc.) would need to use . No thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there's no need to extend what is basically current policy into non-existent absurdity. Anyone can very easily become autoconfirmed - there's no comparison. Rd232 talk 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I say leave the word uncontroversial in. My thoughts on this is that many pages that are protected because two groups of editors are disputing a specific sentence or two, or perhaps the addition or removal of a paragraph. If there were finer granularity of blocks available (either down to sections within a page or for specific users on specific pages) then those blocks could be implemented while the rest of the page was unprotected. As those tools are not available we have to live with cruder tools, but we do not have to sculpture policy exclusively around those tools. The question comes down to whether uncontroversial edit, will on balance improve wikipedia content or damage it. If an admin makes an edit to which another editor objects while a page is protected (so that the objecting non-admin editor can not revert the edit) then the edit will usually be reverted (probably by the admin who made it -- if not by another admin in which case wheel comes into play), and the usual WP:BRD cycle can be played out on the talk page. However if an edit is likely to be non-controversial (eg moving a page into a subcategory) and there is heated discussion about the lead (these blocks on content disputes seem so often to be about the content of the lead section), then there may not be clear consensus on the talk page about the proposed change to a category -- because the question gets lost in the noise of the lead content dispute. So I say that uncontroversial should remain in the policy because on balance it does more good than harm. -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving the word controversial uncontroversial in allows admins to carry on writing the article almost as though there were no protection. That's exactly what Nuclear Warfare said on the talk page. He believes that the policy as written allows admins to carry on "shaping" the article. If you're okay with that, cool. Personally I'm not okay with it at all. Either way the policy needs tightening. We have one admin saying that the policy means protected articles should not be edited except to "remove policy violating text/images", and another admin saying it means it's okay to make article-shaping edits. But mostly we have admins saying nothing and waiting for it to blow over so that they can all be right, no matter how they interpret the policy. We had two admins here who had diametrically opposed interpretations of this policy. Instead of discussing those differences in order that the policy might be improved, they both wandered off into the garden to try to grow a pear. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * First, 80.174.78.102 refers to leaving the word 'controversial' in. I don't see the word 'controversial'.  I see the word 'uncontroversial'.  What did 80.174.78.102 mean?  I think that the policy should be clarified and the definition of uncontroversial edits made more stringent, to include BLP, copyright, correction of typos.  What one person may think are uncontroversial article-shaping edits may be controversial article-shaping edits to another.  Full page protection should be used only as a last resort, and allowing "article-shaping" edits by admins through full page protection reduces the need for admins to get the full page protection lifted.  I think that the policy should be revised with some wording that restricts what should be done during full page protection.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. I meant uncontroversial. I think if you read through the whole discussion (Remove uncontroversial edits from the policy), which I started a few weeks ago, you'll understand my position. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Robert It is easy to define uncontroversial in the circumstances where a page is protected, it is any edit where there is no objection to the edit on the talk page to that edit, I see no problem with following the usual WP:BRD cycle (and so I see no need to change the policy) ... . But I am repeating myself! -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @80.174.78.102 I am repeating myself in part because instead of replying to the points I made you have described one specific scenario and then say "Personally I'm not okay with it at all. Either way the policy needs tightening." If an edit proves to be uncontroversial why are you not "ok with that"? As to you second point I think you mean "I think either way the policy needs tightening." "either way" implies to me "two ways" what is the second? As for your comment "they both wandered off into the garden to try to grow a pear" I would imagine that as they have both think that made their position clear. You do not seem you have a consensus for your proposed change and unless you engage in an interactive discussion that modifies you proposal, so that you end up with a proposal that has a consensus, further discussion is a wast of everyone's time. -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not okay with admins continuing to make "article-shaping" edits while everyone else is limited to commenting from the sidelines. As you note below, it is essentially BRD for admins, and lockout for everyone else. You seem comfortable with that. I'm not. By "either way", I meant that as we have one admin who believes the policy means this, and another who believes it means this, the policy needs tightening to make it clear which interpretation is correct. Either one or the other is correct. They can't both be. Regarding engagement, Nuclear Warfare, Bwilkins   , Dennis Brown , and Jimbo Wales   have all walked away from discussion. I think I've done my fair share of engaging. We now have the RfC, and that will decide the outcome. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "article-shaping" edits is too complex a phase and I suspect you are using it for rhetorical effect, so please let keep it simple and talk about an uncontroversial edit (which is what you wish to stop an admin making without prior consultation). You write "essentially BRD for admins, and lockout for everyone else. You seem comfortable with that. I'm not" If an edit is uncontroversial, then such an edit improves the article, so why are you not comfortable with an edit that improves Wikipedia? -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A sub-question
To what extent (if any) is it relevant in deciding what edits to a full-protected page are in order, to consider whether at the time of the editing, the page addresses a high-profile ongoing news event that is drawing enormous attention, such that an administrator might think it reflects poorly on the project if the article is in a poor or outdated state? Is this a factor that weighs in favor of admins being allowed to go ahead and edit, or is it a factor that cuts the other way, or is it irrelevant? My own view is that an administrator who would let a protected but obscure page sit in a problematic state for some time pending consensus under ordinary circumstances, might feel the need or desire of being more pro-active when the article concerns the number-one ongoing news article in the world. Also relevant is that the process of shaping consensus for edits on the talkpage, in that circumstance, may often be hampered by the massive number of edit-conflicts. Thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought: subpage draft. Rd232 talk 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just repeating myself from above. It's good that there are a few clueful people around who can obviously be trusted to make the occasional uncontroversial update to a rapidly evolving topic through protection. Of course, if admins start gaming this to bias article content, they will need  to be disciplined or the policy will need changing. But that's not happening. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  17:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * also, isn't this one of things Pending changes is supposed to be good for? Rd232 talk 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that muddies the water. What's high-profile, what's not? What's controversial, what's not? If something happens that should clearly go into the article, then it will quickly get consensus on the talk page. This whole thing seems very straightforward to me, and I can't see why it is so difficult to get the wording in to the article. Almost everyone, bar NuclearWarfare, seems to agree that admins should not make any changes to protected articles other the BLP fixes, and possibly typos. Why don't we just have the policy say that? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I would support adding a "current event, article may be inaccurate" tag through protection, but otherwise it "cuts the other way" -- the last thing we want is newcomer(s) who may be drawn to Wikipedia for the first time thing that reach the erroneous conclusion it's edited by a special clique of editors who have been around for a long time. What made us different than the staid commercial hardcopy 'pedias (which are mostly out of business) is we continually admit we have errors and work toward continually improving them rather the arrogantly pretending we have "The Truth." NE Ent 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A minority opinion
I know that my opinion is a minority opinion, but I will restate it. I think that full page protection is an extraordinary measure that is equivalent to declaring martial law on a page, and should maybe be done once a month, typically when there is a life-threatening emergency such as real threats. In the event of edit warring, I would really prefer to see the edit warriors let themselves be edit warriors and get blocked. Putting full page protection on a page that has edit wars just lets the edit warriors escape the consequences of WP:3RR. Since I won't get what I want, I would nonetheless say that full page protection really means full page protection. It doesn't mean protection except against minor edits by admins, with the exception of changes that are legally required, such as biographies of living persons. That is, any admin who edits through full page protection should be placing his status as a Wikipedian (I didn't say admin) on the line. Any admin who edits through full page protection for any reason other than a legal necessity should not be desysopped, but should simply be banned. This is a minority opinion. I don't like full page protection, even for temporary discussion. I am very deeply opposed to admins who have imposed full page protection editing through it, unless there are legal issues. Otherwise, there are issues of corruption in Wikipedia, and we should remember that Wiikpedia is in the real world. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat as Redrose64; I know a few years ago I edited a fully-protected article (can't remember what) because I saw some minor tweak I could make (that was entirely unrelated to the reason the article was locked down). The idea of a "if you edit a fully-protected article for any reason, you'll be banned" rule is just screaming for a citation of WP:IAR. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Editing through full protection is against the ethos of Wikipedia, that "anyone can edit". It also goes against the idea of building the encyclopedia on consensus. Wikilinking is all very well, but when admins abuse their privileges with more fundamental changes to the shape of the article then they are abusing their trust. If admins abuse tools with more fundamental changes, then they should in general not make any changes without seeking consensus first. Using WP:IAR to justify editing like this is an insult to the majority of editors who have been locked out of that article, and cannot use WP:IAR to edit themselves. When a page is full protected, it is should be locked down for everyone, and not treated as "fair game" or any other excuse.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfc: Replacing semi-protection and pending changes protection
I strongly think semi protection is a violation of basic principles of Wikipedia i.e anyone can edit. Moreover most of the ips have contributed significantly in creating articles .However ,many a times ips are involved in vandalism.But,I think semi protection pages should be replaced by pending changes protection due to reason mentioned above.

I do know that there were proposals for pending changes protection.

However there are concerns because any reviewer may neglect good faith edits made by the ip user or even the edit may be ignored which leads to ownership of the article.This only adds bureaucracy and opacity.

Analogues to Cluebot (or clubot itself!), a bot may be created by a team of who will also maintain the bot in case of malfunctioning and also an additional safeguard of emergency shutdown button instead of user.

Any edits made to the article having history of vandalism cannot be effected to the article unless the bot checks the edit for vandalism and approves it.

However it is known that bot may give false positives(very rarely) however if does that, any user can give a report to the team and take suitable action.

That does not mean that rollback right should be removed ,that rights can be helpful in case of false negatives and in case of bot shutdown.Suri 100 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose/Speedy Close Even without all the problems with PC, this would be literally impossible to handle. Also, User:Cluebot NG already does what you describe. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 12:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all please describe how it will be impossible to handle.Morever bot is not a human . CluebotNG reverts edits after the vandalism is done ,it does not prevent vandalism.Secondly ,reviewer may not accept good faith edits made by the user as already mentioned.Suri 100 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewers can barely keep up with an edit every 20 minutes. According to this, there will be is an edit on the English Wikipedia every half a second. I don't think you really understand how pending changes works. Pending changes are still shown to logged in users whether they have been accepted or not. Cluebot NG removes vandalism literally within seconds of it occurring, removing it for both logged in users and those not logged in. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  18:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not saying about all articles ,but only selected articles having a frequent history of vandalism.Suri 100 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This, unfortunately, is a good-faith, but bad proposal. The technology simply does not exist.  If Suri wants to learn how to write computer programs that will do this, then that's fine (good luck to you!).  Any functional improvement in anti-vandalism bots will be welcomed with open arms and even outright cheering, but unless and until Suri (or someone Suri recruits for the task) has actually written and tested the software that makes page protection unnecessary, this is nothing more than a misguided proposal to use non-existent software.  It is exactly as practical as a proposal that we round up vandals and put them on a spaceship and send them to the Moon:  it might be possible far the in future, but it cannot be done at this time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But i think there is a project page for requesting a bot for a functionality.But please see, i am not a programmer :), but i  think if we make minor tweaks to the cluebot source code. I may notify to the creators of cluebotNG.Suri 100 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you want to happen exactly? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I will just see but i will wait until the discussion ends. You may further put forward your points.Suri 100 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose any change to the policy on semi-protection. Semi-protection is a very useful feature.  I am in a minority, but I think that all pages should be semi-protected.  That is, I think that IP addresses should not be able to edit pages.  Anyway, it isn't clear what the proponent wants to change.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Put simply,in place of reviewer in Pending-Changes, a bot similar to Cluebot can review the articles.Suri 100 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When pending changes was discussed (at very great length), the Cluebot people said that this would not be "minor tweaks" and not be possible at a sufficient level to do away with page protection.
 * Like I said earlier: if you think you can do better than them, then learn how to program on your own.  They already said that what they can do is not going to do what you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WhatamIdoing. Semi-protection is absolutely essential to defend against vandalism, while still allowing good-faith trusted users to edit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. However it should be noted that pending changes level 1 has been accepted. Also ,it is in accordance with the Wikipedia open policy. But what i suggest is that reviewer may not accept good faith edits so i suggest that instead it should be replaced by a bot.Suri 100 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bots are far worse than humans at evaluating edits for quality.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposer may not be aware that it took something like five years of discussion to get to the point where we are now with pending changes. It is exceedingly unlikely the community would reject semi protection entirely in favor of PC, which was developed specifically for this project because that is what the community wanted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)