Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Old talk archived

Commons

With growing use of the Wikimedia Commons to host images, a problem arises particularly with regard to protection of images on the main page and other images prone to vandalism. Few en: administrators are also administrators on the commons, and present practice on the commons is not to grant adminship to people unless they have contributed to the commons itself, regardless of whether they are admins on other Wikimedia projects. Therefore, few people have both the interest and ability to handle protection/unprotection in these cases.

Now what?

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

There is no mention on this page of what to do with a page that has been protected, in order to request that it be unprotected...

How do the editors of human get to edit it again, now they have some agreement? Banno 08:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Page move protection?

A section on Page move protection should be added here. That's when the move tab is removed from a page to prevent vandalism. I haven't been able to find it documented anywhere. If it is, it should be linked from this page, as this is where people will look to find out about it. JesseW 08:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just been looking too, and I'm as wise as before. It's expressly covered by the generic "limited circumstances", but no clue as to what those are, exactly. Against page-move-vandalism only? In page-move disputes? And if so, at what stage? For the duration of a requested move "vote", if the target is a moving one? And it should probably be made explicit that admins "should not protect pages which they have been involved with" in this respect, too. Is the request-for-page-move-protection procedure the same? Unless I'm missing something obvious that'd cover this, I'll knock up a proposal for such a section in a couple of days time. Alai 20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking for a technical description, not a policy on when and how to use it, but that would be cool too. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, Alai: I didn't even realize there wasn't one. (Alas, can't help on the technical description.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry for the inadvertent thread-jacking, then. :) There's some description of the effect here: Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page#Other notes: does that cover what you were looking for? I'd say it was mostly self-documenting, though, at least once you realize that why-did-that-tab-just-disappear? does indeed have to do with a deliberate protection feature. Perhaps there should be a talk-page template pointing to the various relevant policies and other meta-pages, covering essentially, why it's move-protected, the policy on same (once there is one!), how to request unprotection (ditto). Alai 01:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Blanking before protection?

Someone is trying out on nl.wikipedia the idea of blanking a page before protection, for an article in which neither party would accept the other's version. (Note: I can't read Dutch and thus don't edit there, so this is all secondhand knowledge plus Babelfish; the page is here: nl:Genseiryu_Karate-Do.)

It might be interesting to try here—in cases where a page is protected due to a content dispute, to blank the page and instead of the current {{protected}} template with a sort of combination of {{protected}} and {{twoversions}}. This does several things. First, the blanking avoids the problem of m:The Wrong Version, and the fact that nobody's version is up gives interested parties more incentive to come to a resolution in a timely fashion.

The nl: version doesn't, however, make it immediately easy for the reader to see the content of the page. Thus, like the twoversions template, the protection template should give a link to both versions of the page and the diff, so that readers can quickly access some version -- any version! -- of the article and see what the issue is about.

(Another note: one of the issues with page protection leaving the page stuck on a particular version is that those who like the protected version have little incentive to hurry discussion along: they have prevailed for the moment, and the longer they delay the longer they are certain their preferred version stays.)

Obviously, this is only for pages protected because of edit-warring over content disputes, not for pages protected because of a sudden flood of vandalism; the idea is to limit it to pages where the dispute is between "two otherwise reasonable parties" who cannot reach agreement (as described by someone I bounced this idea off of previously), so that one lone POV-pusher against consensus cannot get a page blanked.

It may be worth trying on an experimental basis at least. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that would mean the page would always be protected on The Wrong Version instead of only 50% of the time. It would be worse, not better. --cesarb 22:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this if there are links to both versions. If it helps people communicate, it's a good thing. --Kbdank71 17:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creative idea, but I definitely oppose this. Having some kind of article immediately visible to readers is critical in my mind, even if we know it's flawed and even if we have to bracket it with suitable warnings and disclaimers. This is only useful to the editing part of the community, and only potentially so at best, and the cost to the reading part of the community is not worth it. --Michael Snow 17:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has been revived as Wikipedia:No version protection. Hopefully it will get more attention this time. --Phroziac ^(talk) 05:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes "very long"?

It says that "In general, temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long..." The Anarchism page as been locked since the 8th. In my opinion, that's very long. Is that protection in violation of Wikipedia policy? RJII 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need guidelines on how long

I would suggest that there should be a consensus on how long a page should be temporarily protected. In cases of vandalism, 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient. In cases of edit wars, again, I would suggest that 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient. The only reason to protect a page due to an edit war is to enforce a "cooling-off period", and possibly to allow time for a quickpoll. It should not be to lock the page in the Right Version. I think that some pages are protected for an extended period of time because one user makes a protection request, and an admin protects the page as requested, and then does not follow up.

There does not appear to be any clear guideline for when pages should be unprotected. I would suggest that 24 to 72 hours should be sufficient. Robert McClenon 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

All edits to protected pages should be noted at talk

See WP:AN#Stevertigo and Vietnam War. Inspired by this, I am proposing the following addition to this policy: All edits to a protected article must be noted and explained on the talk page. The only exception to this is adding the {{protected}} template. Thryduulf 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a minimum. I would suggest something stronger, such as All edits to a protected article MUST be noted and explained on the talk page. The only exception to this is adding the {{protected}} template. Edits to protected articles are likely to be considered an abuse of admin privileges and should be avoided. Robert McClenon 11:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection for targets of vandalism?

Should pages which are common targets of vandalism, simply by their very nature, get protected? Recently Penis got protected. No edit war has been happening, no targeted attack by a group of ne'er-do-wells, just your standard, minor, childish vandalisms, each unrelated to the other. The page would average between two and five instances of vandalism a day (far less than, say, George W. Bush), nothing one can't handle.

The page is currently protected. When the protection comes off, the vandalism will continue at the exact same rate as before. Most of the new vandals will have never known that the page was protected. Protection will have solved nothing at all, except prevent good-faith contributors from editing the article.

The policy page states that a page can be protected if it

• has been a recent target of persistent vandalism

This makes sense: recent targets of presistant vandalalism are probably spawned by news reports or something, and, after a few days, the vandalism will probably die down. However, long-term, low-level vandalism, at the rough rate of Wikipedia background noise, are not, I think, covered by this, and I can see no possible benefit in protecting pages in these cases. Nothing would be resolved or changed once the page is unprotected.

This isn't a comment about penis per se — I currently have nothing I wish to add to the article and so don't care if it's protected — this is a question of protection policy. Should pages that have a constant level of unrelated acts of vandalism, i.e. both pages that 13-year-olds would look up, like penis or sex, and controvertial figures like George W. Bush, get protection solely as a result of these acts of vandalism? I think not, and I think the policy should be quite specific in stating this. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. Indeed, we might want to add an adendum to our policy spelling out certain "special needs" of a certain "category" of articles. But there are a few nuances. I've had experience with this, so I can say this with some security: even articles that are "vandalism magnets" may profit from protection. As Asbestos said, there's a certain normal rate of vandalism that those articles take, will always take and no amount of protection, except if permanent (which is obviously unacceptable), will change that. However, those are supposed to be long-term, low-intensity attacks, which can be somewhat easily handled by the users committed to the article. The problem is when that changes, when a very insistent vandal/troll, or a group of them, or sockpuppets, take a negative interest in the article. They can make it very laborious and even stressful to maintain an article's integrity, and they are not always easy to spot, on account of dynamic IPs (especially AOL users, etc.). Sometimes, what seems to be a constant, unrelated, succession of attacks, may be just one, or a group of users, insistently returning to disturb Wikipedia. If the IP is dynamic, blocking them is impossible, and useless. But by protecting the article, sometimes for a longer period, we might succeed in getting these people to move on, so the article may return to its regular situation, with "normal vandalism".
This is usually not clear cut. In the case of Penis, for instance, I saw that the article was being attacked two or three times a day, and that almost no new [valid] content was being added, and most of the activity was vandalism and the reverting of it. I blocked it. Once we lift the block, we'll see if the rate of attacks slows down some. If not, we might try to canvas and assess to see if we can spot some sort of similarity that would indicate a connection between the different IPs vandalising the page. If there's none (that we can detect, at least), then there's no point in protecting the article again, but if there appears to be some connection, we might consider another period of protection, to see if we can get the more insistent, returning vandals to move on. That would appear to be the only way to deal with this, and there's at least some hope of reducing the pace of attacks — not eliminating vandalism altogether, that's virtually impossible in some articles. Regards, Redux 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

When a young boy is given his first French dictionary, the first thing he does is look up fuck, penis and cunt. The difference between most French dictionaries and Wikipedia is that if you deface the former, only you get to see it and snigger over it. I'd suggest you recognise this phenomenon and move on. -- Grace Note

Protection Requests and POV Wars

Here is a situation that occurs from time to time. I think that it should be described so that admins can be aware of the situation and use judgment. An article is subject to edit wars. There is an emerging consensus, but there is one POV pusher who disagrees with the consensus, and who may have sockpuppets. The minority editor makes repeated edits that are reverted by the majority. Then the minority editor requests that the page be protected due to "vandalism", or due to an edit war. What often happens is that an admin reviews the edit history and sees that there is a majority and a minority, and so protects the page in the Majority Version. There is no one right answer to this situation, but simply locking the page in the Majority Version is not a long-term solution, nor even much of a short-term solution. If the POV pusher has violated 3RR, then blocking the offender is the short-term solution. Mediation may be a better answer. In extreme cases, arbitration may be necessary to ban a rogue editor. I think that it needs to be clarified that medium-term to long-term page protection is NOT the answer to edit wars.

Page protection for 24 to 72 hours may be a good idea for a cooling-off period or to allow consensus to be determined. Long-term page protection is not the way to deal with an editor who has an open disregard for consensus. Robert McClenon 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Page move protection

Similar considerations apply to protecting a page against being moved, only. In particular, page move protection is appropriate:

• in cases of frequent or on-going page-move vandalism;
• for persistent page-move disputes, on request;
• or where such a dispute continues during the course of a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Comments and suggestions? An admonition about admins and pages they edit/move is hopefully not specifically required, as it's covered in the general case already. Alai 04:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I support you adding it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent... No yelps of protest, so I'm inclined to take this as an indication this is within the spirit of the existing policy, and "add it and see if I get reverted", rather than having a formal vote. (After a short wait to see if this provokes said protests...) Alai 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Protect page from edits by one user?

Can a page be protected by edits from one user who consistently putting in a great deal of POV material and taking out NPOV material? Bubba73 (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest mediation over a combination of content and conduct issues. Robert McClenon 15:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not technically possible. However the user could be blocked from editing at all, ask at WP:AN/I or if it is vandalism WP:VIP or WP:AIV.

If it is one user who is editing from various dynamic IPs then protecting the page might be better. I cannot give a definate answer without know who the user is and what the article is. Thryduulf 08:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a survey not long ago on whether developing a by-user page protection capability would be desirable, and there was a strong consensus in favor of it. I was aware that the feature did not currently exist, but it was my understanding that there was no reason why the developers could not implement it. Robert McClenon 11:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember that, and can't find anything about it in a search for "protection" at bugzilla. If it hasn't been rasied as a bug/feature request there the chances of the developers doing anything about it are slim. Thryduulf 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Test Templates Protection?

The test templates (Test0, Test1, Test2, Test2a, Test3, Test4, Test5) are visible on thousands of pages. Although vandalism to these templates isn't that common, there isn't a need to change them often. Additionally, any changes should be discussed on the template's talk page. What do people think about protecting these templates? Personally, I think they should be protected due to high visibility and the fact that they rarely change. Carbonite | Talk 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that seems reasonable. Robert McClenon 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection power in Arbcom cases

I reverted the edit located here by User:SlimVirgin for two reasons. First, this edit was unnannounced & thus did not reflect any consensus on the talk page as is required for official policy changes. Second, and perhaps more disturbing, the timing of SlimVirgin's change to this clause appears to be intended to insulate herself from a recently accepted Arbcom case against her (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin) that includes multiple charges of violating the clause she changed by imposing page protection on articles where she was involved (evidence located here, here, and here. Given this circumstance, I will ask SlimVirgin and any other supportive editor to refrain from making this change until (1) clear consensus has been established AND (2) the current Arbcom case is decided. Thanks. Rangerdude 04:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop the wikilawyering, RD. I think my edits do reflect what already occurs. The first edit was intended only to establish that "is engaged in editing" is present continuous tense i.e. not a page they once edited, but a page they are currently editing, or an edit dispute they are currently engaged in. So I added "actively." If you look through the page history, you'll see I was the one who added that sentence in the first place.

As for the arbcom point, Fred recently confirmed in relation to a LaRouche editor that any admin may enforce arbcom decisions on any page. For example, removing posts by a banned user is just like removing simple vandalism. I'm therefore going to reinsert my edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wikilawyering, Slim. I'm simply trying to stop you from unilaterally changing an official wikipedia policy in a way that's designed to give you cover in a currently pending Arbcom case against you for violating that exact same policy. You have no business changing the rules to protect your past violations of them. It's called a conflict of interest, Slim, and until the Arbcom issues its finding, you have one as far as this particular rule goes. If you think the policy needs changed, wait until the Arbcom case is done and you no longer have that conflict of interest. Until then, I am opposed to and will continue to oppose your change. Rangerdude 04:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't object when I added the sentence to the intro: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." But you object because I add the word "actively." Why object to the second and not the first? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And stop mentioning your arbcom case. You have submitted a very long list of frankly silly claims to the arbcom against, I believe, four or five editors. That's your business and yours alone. I doubt anyone has even read it yet, particularly as you keep adding to it with no end in sight. Therefore, please don't refer to it as though it has any bearing on other editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the Arbcom case, Slim, because you are trying to change one of the main rules that it accuses you of violating. The Arbcom has voted to accept that case and now they're hearing the evidence that you broke those rules. Altering those rules after the fact to provide yourself cover is therefore a problem. The fact that you decided to change them a day after evidence of your violation was introduced to that case raises a few suspicions, to put it mildly. In my first post I asked you politely to refrain from changing the page protection rule until the case is decided. That is a fair and reasonable request given that a clear conflict of interest exists here. If you truly believe that you did no wrong in page protecting Islamophobia less than 24 hours after you made a major 18-edit rewrite of it, then you should be confident that the Arbcom will exonerate you. Changing the rules to benefit you in the middle of the case is cheating though. Rangerdude 05:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)