Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

yo whatup ? this is yochizzle and i'm so fricking bored and guess what i'm from india and i fry my dogs and eat them and i smell like beep i cant eat meat but i do because i hate you and u ********* people because you all suck so so suck a computer and go away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.241.196 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem semi-protecting an article

I recently semi-protected the page Dank55(send/recieve) on the grounds that an anonymous user keeps adding a section advertising what would appear to be his own business. However, since I did so, there has been no less than 3 anonymous edits.

You cannot protect pages, because you are not an administrator. Simply adding a protection template does not protect an article. Administrators have an extra action tab between "move" and "watch" called "protect", which links to a form from which the article can be protected. You can request that a page be protected or semi-protected at WP:RFPP. Happy‑melon 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Thanks -- I'll do that.Prof Wrong (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the text here is a little over the top. "They were so entranced with her presence" is basically just Tyra's PR. It's inevitable, and I really don't want to bother editing this page, as I think she's a sanctimonious bore (and probably wouldn't be so fair), but if someone is serious about this page, consider toning down the fawning. 75.13.86.109 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages: should policy require an unprotected subpage?

(discussion cloned from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=282445080#Indefinitely_semi-protected_user_talk_pages:_should_policy_require_an_unprotected_subpage?)

Some users are subject to vandalism on their user talk pages which can be quite disruptive. As such, user talk pages may sometimes be protected indefinitely (see Wikipedia:SEMI#User pages). My concern is that this effective disenfranchises non-autoconfirmed users, leaving them unable to contact that particular editor even in good faith. Users who enjoy semi-protection of their talk pages should be asked to create a subpage to allow anonymous users to contact them. As it is a subpage, the orange bar will not disrupt the victim, vandalism will be quickly reverted, and swift blocks can be issued for offenders. No doubt we may make a few exceptions for severe abuse on a case-by-case basis. –xeno (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with this as current mechanisms are in place for such problems (namely talk pages & registering). The only reason semi-protection should be implemented at all is because of excessive/severe IP/new user problems. Providing another page by which to continue such disruption/slander/libel/etc. effectively bypasses the semi-protection. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing about having a subpage is it's just not as "fun" for the vandals to bother you there. Anyhow, I am talking about the general case here, yours may fall under the IAR exception. I am most concerned about the people who interact with anons on a more regular basis like hugglers, new page patrollers, and the like. –xeno (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Perhaps those "severe abuse" exceptions could be spelled out. I'd consider supporting this under those conditions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say things that could potentially cause real-world harm to the editor (outing, severe defamation, and the like) would be examples of exceptions. –xeno (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that "vandalism will be quickly reverted, and swift blocks can be issued for offenders" on a subpage, but not the user's main talk page? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When a user takes the time out to vandalize an anon-talk subpage, you can be pretty safe in blocking whether or not they've received any {{uw}}'s. –xeno (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of keeping communication open, I feel it would be a good idea to require users with indef semi protected talk pages to also have a subpage where anons can post to. Like Xeno said above, users found vandalizing these subpages can probably be blocked on the spot as they are surely the reason the users talk page was protected in the first place. Tiptoety ^talk 04:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with Xeno and Tiptoety. No editor should be isolated from legitimate IP posts. — Ched :  ?  07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

having an unprotected subpage would seem a minimal necessity; editors need to be accessible to communication. For reasons of their own, many reliable users continue to remain as IP accounts. DGG (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

“ Users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users. ”

^ Proposed addendum to WP:PROT#User pages. –xeno (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we define "lengthy"? Or just leave it open to interpretation? -- Alexf^(talk) 17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good question... I'd say anything longer than a few weeks could be considered "lengthy", depending on how active the user is. (meanwhile, I've implemented my proposed wording above) –xeno (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I feel we need to make it clear that attempts to vandalize such pages will not be looked highly upon, and will only result in one warning if any prior to blocking. Like I said above, anons that go out of their way to vandalized a subpage are clearly the ones that caused the persons talk page to be protected to begin with and as such, such not be given the courtesy of four warnings. Tiptoety ^talk 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no orange bar indicating that a new post has happened, how is the user supposed to know there has been any attempt at communication and why would they ever bother to look at such a page? Its stated purpose to "allow communication" would not seem to be facilitated. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By adding it to their watchlist. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So the policy is going to require the person to add the page to their watch list and to monitor changes to it?? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's beyond the scope of what's been proposd. I would hope that users at least peek at the page once in a while to see if anyone tried to contact them in good faith - it's not much to ask. –xeno (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that requiring viewing is beyond what has been proposed- but really if anyone who has their user page blocked from IP edits is going to communicate with an IP on a subpage, they are going to have to do it volontarily, and they can voluntarily create the subpage now. What is the benefit of creating a mandatory policy for a nonmandatory viewing? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCS takes care of that. Any wikipedian who creates a page to receive communication would look at it regularly. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is my point entirely. This is creating a new (aspect of) policy that will have no effect greater than current voluntary option offer. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, people do not see Xeno's proposal as common sense. Once implemented, IF people whose talk pages are semiprotected don't look at their unprotected talk pages, we can consider enforcing this - but we really won't need to. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) if you really want a an answer to the problem that would ensure IPs are able to communicate with (i.e. demonstrable 2 way sharing of information/viewpoints - and not just the illusion of communication via a post on a never read page), then you could create some type of centralized notice board and real humans monitor the communications from IP's and where appropriate make a post to the semi-protected page. But that seems like it would take a lot of energy that could have been put to actual useful constructive contributions to building an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition to the protection policy isn't forcing anyone to do or not do anything. It just suggests they have a user talk subpage for non-autoconfirmed users. It's pretty simple, and these objections you are raising are straw men. –xeno (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, I see where you are coming from, and understand your concerns. That said, this is simply saying that a subpage should be set up. It is not telling anyone what to do with it, or whether to read it. The same can be said of talk pages. They are there for communication, but the user can choose to ignore messages there nonetheless. Tiptoety ^talk 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just weighing in to add support for this as a sensible addition (in fact I could have sworn it was already recommended elsewhere). Mayalld (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support the use of "should" over "may wish to". If you're talk page is protected, you should have some way for anons to contact you (if you are having your talk page protected for the sole purpose of prohibiting anons, then it should be revoked). "Should" is a stronger wording, so I support that. The wording as it is I would say is fine. -Royalguard11(T) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

indef-semi user talk pages - arbitrary break

• I just noticed that until someone boldly added the bit about protecting user talk pages in February, the policy simply said User talk pages are not usually semi-protected. In any case, I'd appreciate if users would discuss changes to the added sentence rather than tag-teaming to soften it up. –xeno (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing bold about documenting existing policy in more detail. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

creep creep creep. It is clearly a major change in policy approach that should require more than 5 people's input before implementation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'd be happy to just go back to the days of not protecting user talk pages. It's very un-wiki to do so without giving non-autoconfirmed users some way to contact you. –xeno (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, make that 6 people, then. Users absolutely need some way to let anons communicate with them. Period. --Conti|✉ 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Conti. To TheRedPen: Decisions are made by those who show up. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And quickly unmade or ignored if they impinge on actual working practice. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposed policy would create a positive obligation on Wikipedia users by requiring the User to watch a page only because he was attacked. This is unlike any other Wikipedia policy, because it does not even work with an open Wiki.

All other User obligations apply only to a user that does something, and apply only to what he does; they do not require anything of a non-editing reader or an inactive editor, and active editor is required only for those acts in which he is active.

When an editor is obliged to verify the accuracy of information he has added, Wikipedia:Verifiability applies because he is adding information, and only the the added information is his obligation. When an Administrator protects a page according to the Wikipedia:Protection policy, it applies because he is protecting a page, and only his protection is his obligation.

For this reason, the proposed policy is unenforceable, unlike all existing policies. If a User does not watch his alternate page, is the remedy to unprotect his User-Talk page, making a forever-attacked Talk page? Enlist another registered user to forward all legitimate messages? Block him from editing at all, making the proposed policy more like Wikipedia:I would like to be unblocked or Wikipedia:Will my new username anger, disgust, or confuse? than Wikipedia:Under attack, protect me. Unverifiable text is deleted. Wrongly protected pages are unprotected. Vandals, edit-warriors, and curmudgeons of all shapes, blocked. Reverted, deleted, moved, desysopped, all remedies for violations, irrelevant to an inactionable policy.

Furthermore, this particular proposal empowers the attacker to force the victim to remember him and act, and does not disable his direct and now required contact with the victim.

On the contrary, the onus of a legitimate IP user to talk to the rare protected talk page is as simple as once creating an anonymous account, and is needless for the prevailing topics of IP users which belong in Article Talk pages or Wikipedia Talk pages. —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like "Users with semi-protected talk pages should" or "Users with semi-protected talk pages may wish to", "create and watch an unprotected alternate talk page for unregistered supplicants" would be correct, but might be instruction creep. —Centrx→talk • 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction: An anon wouldn't just have to create an account to talk to someone whose talk page is semi-protected, they would have to create an account, make 10 edits with it, wait 4 days, and then they could talk to whomever they wanted to talk to. That's, frankly, not acceptable. I agree that we shouldn't "enforce" this idea, since we can't enforce it (just like we can't enforce people to reply to anything at all on their talk page), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strongly encourage it. --Conti|✉ 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Policies on Wikipedia are enforceable. The proposal sought to add a compulsion to the policy, which is either enforceable or is a lie. —Centrx→talk • 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the current language as modified by BQZip01:

  It is suggested that users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time create an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.(emphasis mine)

  This makes it clear that it is not a requirement, but that it is a good idea. The objectors above are correct that we cannot force editors to pay attention to IP editors if they just don't want to. However, I don't see why policy cannot even recommend a way for users to make themselves available for communication from IP editors.--Aervanath (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I still support the "should" wording over "suggested", again because it's stronger. It is not a change in policy or a punishable offense, but I think it should be strongly recommended to have a way for anons to talk to you. User talk pages should only be protected for long periods of time as a last resort anyways, so this won't change too much (the only person I can remember who had a long term protected talk page was User:Ryulong). -Royalguard11(T) 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

communication forums are good things. faux "communication" forums that only give an illusion of communication, like "suggestion boxes" at work that are never opened except to dump the suggestions into the garbage, are bad ideas. with language like "should create subpages" wikilawyers are going to hound users to create pages that are never looked at. IPs are going to try to "communicate" with folks who arent going to participate. And then what? the IPs are going to be even more frustated that they aren't being heard in a forum that explicitly suggests that they will be heard. Bad bad bad all around. Framing the suggestion as a "best practice", or one that a user "may wish to" - language that will only create the appearance of communication forum where the registered user is actually going to participate in an actual communication forum - is fine. Anything else is instruction creep that is simply setting up additional problems. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the idea that this will be some sort of requirement. It is a suggestion, but it should be a strong suggestion. Most user talk protections should only be in the 24-48 hour range anyways. As I said on the VP, if your talk page is semiprotected for a long term and you want to keep that because it prohibits anons, then protection should be revoked anyways (that's already policy: "...nor should [semi protection] be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users").

It's really a clarification. If you have a long term s-p talk page and someone thinks you are abusing that privilege, then an admin can take a look and make a decision as to whether there is a legitimate reason to keep the page protected or whether it's no longer needed. This is really another option, if you have a long term s-p talk page and an unprotected subpage then it is evident that you are not abusing the s-p.

You're delving way too much into human psychology, and I for one am not going to let psycho-bable drive policy. It is wholly irrelevant whether it is an appearance of communication (or "illusion") or actual communication because I can make the exact same argument for regular user talk pages. I leave my talk page unprotected (even when I picked up a bit of a wiki-stalker a couple years ago) so anyone can leave me a message. I try to respond to anyone who leaves me a message, but I could just ignore all messages which would be bad form for an admin (especially if it were something involving me), but I could. Your argument is moot, a straw man. If you have any more legitimate reasons then let us hear them, but enough about people's intentions (and don't be so pessimistic). -Royalguard11(T) 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You could "pretend not to know" you have messages on your talk page, but you get the orange bar letting you know that such communication does in fact exist. And even Wikipedia's assumption of good faith presume that a message posted on a users talk page will count as valid communication to the user - even if the user chooses to ignore or not read the message (the same way sending a piece of registered mail counts as "legal notification" even if you toss the envelope in the garbage unopened). As you continually agree, for a communication on a subpage to actually be "communication" requires the voluntary participation of the user with the protected talk page. Anything other than voluntary participation by people who will actually use the method of communiction is adding instructions purely for instructions sake. There is no benefit to the project to "should" into existence non-value add pages that will actually increase IP editors frustration when their "communication" goes ignored. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is not going to monitor their unprotected talk page is very unlikely to create one anyway. This does not negate the suggestion that they should. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@Royalguard11 - I dont really feel your position "I put up with death threats, other wikipedia editors should, too" is a position that I would consider helpful to wikipedia @Royalguard11 again- re "straw dogs", no more than the basis of the entire "reason" for the change to policy - implication that IPs lack any method to communicate to protected pages- as pointed out above, they can create an account, or use {help me} on their talk page to go through an intermediary, amongst others.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me understand, you are against a suggestion that users should do (in rare cases), but anons should jump through as many hoops as we can throw at them? And can you please give an actual response, all this talk about "notice" is sounding awfully wiki-lawyery, and as I said above the actual communication is irrelevant to the topic at hand. All you've done is ignored what I've said and repeated the same ramble as before and still with no legitimate reason besides "I don't want feeling hurt because the illusion of communication is worse then no communication" (again, irrelevant). -Royalguard11(T) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If we arent talking about IPs being able to communicate to users with protected talk pages, then I have completely been in the wrong conversation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We are, it's just your position is as I have said irrelevant. It does not matter whether or not there is actual communication, what matters is that there is a venue for communication. Without a venue there can be no communication, which in my opinion is worse then having a venue and not using it. -Royalguard11(T) 17:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - "appearances" of communication are actually more important than actual communication? If that is your position. I have no more to discuss with you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you said that there's no point in having the page if no one uses them, and I said that's not the point. Having a page is still much better then not having one, can't we agree on that? -Royalguard11(T) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No I dont agree - having a page that an IP editor has every right to assume is a real communication forum but is not actually a communication forum at all is only going to frustrate the IP editor. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Moreso than just being denied a venue altogether? –xeno (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But they arent being "denied" - as above - if they really want to communicate there are options. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Create an account, make 10 edits, wait 4 days. Yeah, can't see why anyone would have problems with that. --Conti|✉ 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

or 10 keystrokes {helpme}. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

and these users will know about helpme, how exactly? perhaps an alternative to a subpage could be the transclusion of some notice instructing anons how to contact the editor if they need to. –xeno (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just asking to apply the basics of WP:CREEP - 1) identifying the actual issue, 2) creating a fix that actually addresses THAT issue, 3) that doesnt create false positives or other bad side effects.

Add {helpme} instructions to the "you cant edit this page" warning that pops up.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Images uploaded from Commons

Why do we specifically have to upload it from Commons locally when we can easily just protect it on Commons (as we do usually), then put the template saying its protected here, then lock the page locally? Why is there that extra step? I am wanting to know this since some people are trying to deprecate specific license tags to be "Commons-only", and I want to not cause any harm in doing so. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Images can be protected on commons when they would fulfil the protection criteria for multiple projects; for instance the images used in the mbox templates, which have been ported to many other wikis. An image which is, for instance, used on the enwiki main page, is not otherwise special, and wouldn't warrant protection on commons (as it would stop users from other wikis being able to edit and improve it). So in those situations we upload a local copy and protect that, so the Commons version can remain unprotected. Happy‑melon 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask Commons admins that question. You can always ask for an image to be protected on commons, but I guess the short answer would be that if they won't then we have to do it locally. Most of us are only admins here. -Royalguard11(T) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Message on salted pages

Why does the message on salted pages say "please do not contact the protecting administrator"? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about "old style" salted pages or the new style? Maybe it's because I'm an admin but I don't see that message on the ordinary protected non-existent red-link titles. In my opinion though, it should be the same procedure as questioning protections about regularly protected pages, the first step is to contact the protecting admin. I'm not sure why it would say not to do that. It's probably buried in some Mediawiki: page too. Maybe someone else here knows why? -Royalguard11(T) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is because you're an admin; for most users, if the protection reason is {{pp-create}} then that template is automagically transcluded onto the edit screen when you try to edit. Otherwise you get a generic "this page has been protected from creation" warning. I guess the only reason would be that salted pages have a higher chance of having been protected by an admin who has now left the project? Happy‑melon 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even want to imagine how many current pages were protected by admins who have now left. I would guess it would be quite a few. No reason not to try and contact them, but if they haven't edited in x months then there's probably no point. I know, I bet it has something to do with WP:DRV. That would sometimes be where we'd send someone if they made a request at RFPP. -Royalguard11(T) 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the message I saw came from {{Pp-create-old}}, which appears to have been used when deprecating "protected pages" in 2007. The admin who did the protection probably did not know anything specific about the page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection rationales and lengths

Shouldn't protection rationales be spelled out on the talk page of the protected page? Especially indefinitely protected ones? 76.66.196.218 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection rationales are usually specified in the protection log, the last entry from which is shown at the top of the edit window when a user tries to edit the page. For some indef-protected pages, like templates, the {{permprot}} template is used on the talk page. Happy‑melon 07:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen many "rationales" that don't provide rationales in the protection logs. They just say "protected" (or similar) with no rationale given. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that is a problem that needs to be corrected. Admins should always provide a clear explanation of why they are protecting a page. If you see a particular admin consistently failing to explain their proctection actions, feel free to drop them a note on their talk page asking them to do so in future. Happy‑melon 11:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. That was a problem when I use to go through the protected pages to try and unprotect some. When the rationale is just "protected" or "vandalism" you don't know if they mean long term sock target or sometime. I would say go and bug them and ask them why. Unless the reason is either OFFICE or OTRS related, they have to tell you. If they won't tell you why they protected something then if you wanted to you could ask even me to bug them (I don't mind bugging other admins). If they can't produce any reason then that page probably doesn't need to be protected. I would hope that most of the time just asking would do the trick though. -Royalguard11(T) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pollution Article

I noticed the Pollution article was lacked because I couldn't edit it, but there is no symbol and I don't know how to put a symbol. Stuvaco922 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)