Wikipedia talk:Protection policy: Difference between revisions
Deez tacos (talk | contribs) →Chicken Faces: new section |
m Signing comment by Deez tacos - "→Chicken Faces: new section" |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
== Chicken Faces == |
== Chicken Faces == |
||
Eat them and then puke. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ċċċċċċċċċċċďďďéééé |
Eat them and then puke. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ċċċċċċċċċċċďďďéééé <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Deez tacos|Deez tacos]] ([[User talk:Deez tacos|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deez tacos|contribs]]) 13:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 13:09, 23 May 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page. |
|
![]() | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
![]() | This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages. To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
List of protected pages
The special page "Protected pages" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ProtectedPages seems to have many inaccuracies: many of the pages that it lists as fully protected are currently semi-protected (e.g. Quran, LOL) or not protected at all (e.g. Éire, Grand Unified theory). I don't know how that page is administered—sorry if this is the wrong place to be posting about it. Kajabla (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pages can have multiple kinds of protection applied, for example LOL has semi-protection applied for editing the page, but full-protection applied for moving (renaming) the page. — xaosflux Talk 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- An easy way to check these on a page is to go to history, then click logs for this page. — xaosflux Talk 17:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
New 30/500 section
Since the new extendedconfirmed user level will be activated relatively soon per this I thought it was necessary to add an explanation as to what exactly 30/500 protection is for anyone looking for that information. I have done so. Please feel free to add in any information you think I missed. --Majora (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do we really want to start a "list of articles" on the protection page ? Mlpearc (open channel) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not; but I would suggest that we do want to make it clear that this level of protection is not for general use. Suggest This level of protection is intended for use only in limited topic areas, where its use has been approved by either ArbCom or the community or similar. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mlpearc: Hopefully this level of protection will not be authorized for many (if any) more articles. I understand where you are coming from though and it certainly wouldn't be feasible to list articles under different types of protection. I was following the lead of WP:OFFICELIST that has a list of articles under that level of scrutiny. Also, I listed the articles covered since it will give a little bit of information for those looking for what 30/500, extendedconfirmed, or the blue padlock means. A lot of editors don't venture anywhere near GamerGate or the A-I conflict so if they stumble upon a page that has the blue padlock the section can quickly explain what other articles are under 30/500. Feel free to remove it if you think otherwise. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Disgusted with new 30/500 rights group
I've previously complained about the slippery slope problems that 30/500 engendered. The standard response was that it was used in very limited circumstances, such as GamerGate etc. People couldn't imagine, or didn't want to believe, that it would ever become a big enough thing to cause problems. Now, it's a new rights group, a new tool to discriminate against new users who are the very life blood of the project. We've gone from a limited scope to a new user right in blinding quick fashion. I'm already seeing proposals crop up to apply this level of protection in areas where there isn't a problem. The whole notion is antithetical to what Wikipedia is supposed to be. There's no stopping it now, and I'm sure lots of you will say "tut tut, this won't be an issue". Wikipedia's gone insane. The very people who built this project are now being demonized as the people who are trying to take it down. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Extendedconfirmed padlock colour
At the moment, I believe the current padlock colour for the new 30-500 Arbitration Committee padlock is too obtrusive, it's too there, unlike the other padlocks, which blend into the white a lot better. I feel as though it should be changed from the dark blue padlock to a nice, light blue padlock. All the files are already here and nothing needs to be changed, except the templates; is the current one, and
is what I'm suggesting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, as for now it is only allowed to be used when authorized by Arbcom, it should be a bit more obstrusive (like the office-action protection, which is black). I'd say leave it like it is. Lectonar (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The rfc suggests that while this can be added by arbcom, it can also be added "by the community" akin to topic bans etc. — xaosflux Talk 11:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was following the policy-page here which still states:"....This level of protection can only be used when authorized by the Arbitration Committee...". Actually I would be happy to have it at my fingertips as a new kind of protection for "special" cases. See also our little braintsorming at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#new options. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Motions regarding Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement
The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement
Bulleted and numbered lists
@Voidxor: I'm willing to go with the bulleted list here. As I read the guideline in the section below WP:ListFormat, bulleted lists are preferred in this instance. One small point. The bulleted items may be in sentence case or lower case. I prefer lower case simply because they are not complete sentences. Are you good with my changing the items to lower case?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I've actually come to prefer that all list elements begin with a capital letter. The reason is consistency. As you said, while complete sentences must be capitalized, sentence fragments may go either way. I've seen hundreds of lists that consist of both complete sentences and sentence fragments intermixed; obviously they should be capitalized as they would look ridiculously inconsistent otherwise. But then, if you expand the scope, you could argue that all lists within a given article should have consistent capitalization, even when some lists contain sentence fragments and others contain full sentences. Then, to expand the scope further, you could argue that all articles should be consistent. Since they can't be consistently lowercase because of complete sentences, the only consistent format would be uppercase. Not only is that my preference (I'm a fan of consistency), but it also seems to be the prevailing format for sentence-fragment list elements across the 'pedia. Anyway, partial revert me if the capitalization bugs you. I mostly wanted to style the list for what it is: unordered. Assuming good faith of course, I'd remind you that what you're "willing to go with" doesn't hold water when there's already a consensus guideline. Nobody owns these policy pages. – voidxor 18:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Responding to your last point, a change pursuant to a guideline may be reverted and would still need to be discussed on the Talk page. That would be true with an article, but policy pages, no matter what you think, are different from other beasts, and administrators may have quite a bit more to say about changes to policy pages than non-admins. After all, we have to apply the policies when it comes to using our tools. Somewhere it says that policies are different from ordinary pages, but I don't remember where, and I'm not going to spend my time hunting for it. I'm in favor of consistency as well, but it's very hard to achieve on this project, and it's just as hard to determine what is most prevalent. I'll partly revert you because the guideline says so and because I think that option makes more sense. Thanks for your input.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- And there we go with the trump card! Again, I wasn't changing policy—just the formatting. For the record, the guideline does not "say so"; it says that either is fine for sentence fragments. Admit it, you just prefer it the other way. You haven't bothered to explain why. Our preferences differ so we discuss. I make my case, but you're an admin and needn't make yours. So you win. Okay, I'm feeling rather bit and done interfacing with you. Have fun lording over your watchlist. – voidxor 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- One final try. You're more than welcome to my watchlist; it exhausts me. I really think we're talking at cross purposes here and you don't understand what I'm about and I'll just assume I don't understand what you're about. Meanwhile, I'm making comments that irritate you and you're making comments that irritate me. I have a feeling that we'll never become good buddies (smile), but I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to think we are. In any case, I don't want to bore you with my Wikipedian amateur psychoanalysis. Nor is this the best forum for it. So I won't say any more. I'm perfectly happy (sincerely, no sarcasm) if you want to have the final word(s).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- And there we go with the trump card! Again, I wasn't changing policy—just the formatting. For the record, the guideline does not "say so"; it says that either is fine for sentence fragments. Admit it, you just prefer it the other way. You haven't bothered to explain why. Our preferences differ so we discuss. I make my case, but you're an admin and needn't make yours. So you win. Okay, I'm feeling rather bit and done interfacing with you. Have fun lording over your watchlist. – voidxor 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Responding to your last point, a change pursuant to a guideline may be reverted and would still need to be discussed on the Talk page. That would be true with an article, but policy pages, no matter what you think, are different from other beasts, and administrators may have quite a bit more to say about changes to policy pages than non-admins. After all, we have to apply the policies when it comes to using our tools. Somewhere it says that policies are different from ordinary pages, but I don't remember where, and I'm not going to spend my time hunting for it. I'm in favor of consistency as well, but it's very hard to achieve on this project, and it's just as hard to determine what is most prevalent. I'll partly revert you because the guideline says so and because I think that option makes more sense. Thanks for your input.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
I'm proposing a larger scope for template protection. Currently, template protection is used on highly visible templates. I'm proposing that it can also be (temporarily) used for pages that have a lot of vandalism from autoconfirmed users and possibly other users. Thoughts? Peter Sam Fan 16:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. It's explicitely not the protection level is designed for. WP:30/500 might become what you're seeking (once community consensus approves its normal usage). Otherwise, short-term full protection, PC2 (for special cases), an edit filter or rangeblock is what we use. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to clarify/update the wording at TEMP-P and UPROT
@Mr. Stradivarius, Evad37, MusikAnimal, Peter SamFan, Salvidrim!, Anomie, and Equazcion: (at least)
Hi, there was a brief discussion here (diff) about a request for indefinite edit template-protection on a page within my own userspace. I intended the page to be used as a substituted template for my signature (which is discouraged but permissible), and to keep copies of signatures my subpages in sync. The reason for the protection request is to alleviate the potential for the page to be a "vandal target", which the signatures page itself points out. Hence, the request is an example of a "user request within own userspace", and per WP:UPROT: User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists, the request can be carried out.
But the current wording at WP:TEMP-P says, "This protection level may only be used on high-risk templates and modules and possibly in rarer cases where pages in other namespaces become transcluded to a very high degree."
That line in policy on TEMP-P was written in this diff and this diff when the userright was in its infancy, and has not changed in 3 years. The policy on user requests on user pages was updated in this diff about 4 months earlier.
Hence, the request in discussion brings up several questions to consider:
- Can a user request template-protection on a page in their user space?
- If yes, shouldn't the wording at TEMP-P be updated to reflect the relaxation of its limitation?
- If no, shouldn't the wording at UPROT be updated to clarify its limitations?
Note the current list current list of template-protected pages in the user namespace (from Special:ProtectedPages). If user-requested template-protection in their own space is disallowed, we potentially have a number of cases where policy has been violated.
There are about 2 things on this policy page to update in my opinion.
- Update the wording at TEMP-P to clarify cases when template-protected userspace pages, or other namespaces, are legitimate.
- Clarify or update UPROT on the protection levels that are allowed by policy. (Might as well take the opportunity to clarify what to do about ArbCom 30/500 protection requests (?))
Thanks for taking some time reading this. I hope this will help clarify some potential gray areas in current protection policy. :) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 06:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The "This protection level may only be used on high-risk templates..." was included only to prevent this protection from creeping into overzealous just in case scenarios where most general-use templates should rather remain editable by the general public. The spirit of that "clause" was never intended to prevent users from utilizing protection on something so personal as their own substituted sig page. I see no reason to deny a user this particular protection type there, if it's the most convenient one for their purposes (it does seem to be, until MediaWiki starts including some personal userspace protection right). The only reason to deny might be strict adherence to the "letter of the law" as currently written, which is really no reason at all. I'd say grant the request and add a disclaimer to WP:TED that subst'd sig pages can be template-protected on request. equazcion → 08:48, 30 Apr 2016 (UTC)
Αgree with User:Equazcion. Peter Sam Fan 13:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. On WP:TED, I moved a section that talks tangentially about template protection down to a new section "Template protection considerations" in case we do want to elaborate there. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 15:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also agreed. Given you are a template editor, adding template-protection to your sig page is harmless and I have done this exact thing for other users before. The policy doesn't say anything about fully protecting user pages for no good reason, but I've done that to my own, because I can still edit it. It's your userspace; your signature is not a collaborative page, and it indeed is highly visible. Template protection seems appropriate — MusikAnimal talk 16:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! In that case, I'll submit another protection request for it soon. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Error message on my first PP
Hugh Bonneville is my first page protection as an admin. It looks protected to me. However, a bot added this message on the request: "One or more pages in this request have not been protected" What did I neglect to do in the process? — Maile (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Yaris678 removed the extended protection you applied, and implemented pending changes level 1. So it is protected, but only pc level 1. For what it is worth, I agree that pc level 1 is sufficient. And the bot is time-delayed, so when it acted, the page wasn't protected anymore. Lectonar (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I only meant for it to be PC 1, and the error was mine. — Maile (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Maile66: extended confirmed protection may only be used in very special situations. Normally, you should ignore this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I only meant for it to be PC 1, and the error was mine. — Maile (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection (two ArbCom motions; May 2016)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed
user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.
- Users
- No action is required on the part of any current user. User accounts that meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group on their next edit. User accounts that do not yet meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group when they do qualify.
- The
extendedconfirmed
user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up here, intended primarily to handle the case of publicly identified legitimate alternative accounts of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.
- Current uses
- As of this announcement, this protection level is authorized for use in the following areas:
- The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page.[1]
- The Brianna Wu article.[2]
- The Anita Sarkeesian article.[3]
- Selected articles pertaining to Indian castes and their talk pages.[4]
- Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]
- Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed prior to this motion passing shall remain in force unaffected.
- Expectations
See proposals below (to be added as dot points).
Notes
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing.
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate.
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: log.
- ^ As an arbitration enforcement action: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#Caste articles and talk pages.
- ^ As an Arbitration Committee decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#500/30
Enacted - Miniapolis 16:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support
- Just a factual summary to accompany the proposals below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed this subsubsubsection completely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- As a statement of fact, I suppose. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure it's necessary, but no harm to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- per GW. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- procedural confirmation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
Enacted - Miniapolis 16:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support
- I think it's important to hold the line on this. I would like this protection level to be used - at least at first - specifically where there is persistent socking, SPAs, meatpuppets, etc., and not merely for "disruptive editing" that happens to be coming from relatively inexperienced users. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weekly my first preference, I'd like to see 30/500 used on pages where there is consistent socking and use of throwaway accounts rather than just new accounts occasionally breaking through the autoconfirmed barrier. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- very weakly, but if we are going to let admins do this in our name then we need real criteria --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- First choice. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Second choice. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, needs to be spelled out. This is main reason it would be used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- If individual admins are going to be doing it, as seems likely to pass, it needs definite limits. The ones set forth here are appropriate. Other cases if necessary can be dealt with by arb com. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keilana (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Don't think it needs to be spelled out this thoroughly. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- We already have a standing rule that this be applied to all pages in the I-P topic area. Doing this article-by-article with these rules is too burdensome to enforce an existing decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Abstain
Chicken Faces
Eat them and then puke. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ċċċċċċċċċċċďďďéééé — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deez tacos (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)