*Update implemented with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protection_policy&diff=783164779&oldid=781654977 this edit] [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
*Update implemented with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protection_policy&diff=783164779&oldid=781654977 this edit] [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
== Please change protection policy ==
I want there to exist a new level of protection that I invented: "Register protection", which prevents unregistered users from editing pages with this level. It will use the padlock [[File:Padlock mint.svg|50px]]. Confirmation or autoconfirmation is not required to edit pages with this protection. All I need to do to edit pages with this protection is logging in or creating an account (the same required to create pages (not talk pages). [[User:Bemahewal|Bemahewal]] ([[User talk:Bemahewal|talk]]) 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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 {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.
If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit.
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.
Hi! I noticed a side discussion going on here (which, admittedly, I turned into a full discussion), and I thought that it should have its own section for discussing the subject. (Added by Noah Kastin (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Majora: I have changed the color of the padlock on WP:CASC to gold! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Noah Kastin said (not as a direct reply, but as part of a longer post, most of which had to do with the main discussion):
And, unrelated to the main discussion (though related to an earlier comment in this discussion by MSGJ): MSGJ, I think that using a gold lock for cascade protection might confict [sic] with full protection, since WP:GOLDLOCK goes to full protection, but would equally apply to anything else with a gold lock. I think another color, which does not share a shortcut with anything, would be beter [sic]. For example, this one could be used:
I do think that a color which does not conflict with a current shortcut should be used for cascading protection, but there are many colors of locks which fit these criteria. A full list of available locks can be found at Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks#Available, but here is a list of 3D ones (in the same style as the other locks) which would not potentially usurp a shortcut:
This section is for voting on colors, preferably one of the ones listed above. If any of the padlocks which you want to vote for does not have a section below, please add a section for it with a picture of the lock. (Notice added by Noah Kastin (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thanks for the vote! I realized that it might have seemed like voters have to vote on one of the three colors I mentioned; as a large part of this was to see what other people want the padlock color to be, I would be happy for voters to pick any padlock, not just the ones I mentioned. Two edits I made (this edit and this edit) attempted to clear this up. Knowing this, you might want to change your vote. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thanks for entering into this discussion! I appreciate any feedback.
I apologize for stating the point of this discussion confusingly. The point is not to change the template protection icon, which is what the Icon for template protection discussion was about. This discussion was created due to dissatisfaction with the current padlock for cascading protection, as the current padlock might conflict with an already existing shortcut (the current cascading padlock is bright gold, hence might conflict with full protection, which is dull gold, so they both could legitimately use WP:GOLDLOCK).
As for the template protection padlock, I don't think that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't mind if it changes, as long as it doesn't change to a retired padlock color. However, that's part of its own discussion (which this was originally a side discussion of), hence the confusion.
I hope that this has made matters clearer. If you have any questions, please let me know.
My color preferences have changed, which my new color votes reflect.
For reasons stated above, my main goal with this discussion is to get some color on my proposed list of 16 padlocks to replace the current color. Changing my votes like this should help get some color on the list to replace the current color, as there is now clear consensus (if two editors counts as consensus) to go ahead with one color.
Please let me know if this goes against Wikipedia policy or is otherwise problematic.
Right now, there seems to be a clear consensus that the lock icon should be changed to the Turquoise lock icon (the one pictured to the right). I'm going to put in a request at the Teahouse to ask how the lock color can be changed. If anyone has any suggestions on how to do this or any other comments (including color votes), feel free to let me know. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Clarification needed?
Normally, I am on the side of avoiding instruction creep, but when I see an admin who appears to be missing the point of a policy, I have to wonder whether a slight wording change will avoid problems in the future. Note that I am not asking that the wording be changed, but rather trying to open a discussion about whether it should be changed.
The policy section is this:
"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" --WP:PREFER
The conversation where I believe that an admin missed the point of the policy is here:[1][2][3]
In my opinion, the problem is the "administrators normally protect the current version" language. It seems to me that the policy should instead state or at least imply that administrators should use their discretion to decide whether to protect the last edit made or to restore a previous, stable version. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists"? -- zzuuzz(talk)16:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps we should include something that in that case the protecting admin is not to be considered involved (I think the protection of the current version is recommended exactly to avoid being accused of being involved). Often edit-warring isn't that clear cut to begin with. Lectonar (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't work. If an admin who is not previously involved in a content dispute but secretly favors version B over version A sees an edit war, all he has to do is wait until one of the edit warriors reverts to version B and instantly protect the page. We need to trust the administrators to recognize when they have strong feelings about the content of an article and let some other admin who doesn't have a bias (conscious or unconscious) deal with the edit warring behavior without using the tools to issue a supervote on article content. In my opinion, very close to 100% of admins do the right thing in such cases, and I don't see even a tiny hint to the contrary in the underlying case that I am studiously ignoring as I discuss policy wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording, as I noted in the prior discussion which Guy Macon actually cites above in his diff, already states this. As I told Guy Macon the first time, the current text already says " administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists" I don't know why he believes that the current policy does not allow for admin discretion, since 1) it clearly states that it does and 2) in the very same post where I first replied to him, I plainly explained to him that it does. I'm not sure what else to do here, since both this page, and my explanation thereof, could not be any clearer regarding this. --Jayron3217:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you also told me "clearly states best practice is usually to protect the current version",[4] which is dead wrong. Neither protecting the current version or protecting a stable, status quo version is "best practice". Either is allowed, at the admin's discretion. The policy does not say anything about "best practice". I assume that the reason you wrote that particular wrong-headed opinion (and your snarky comment about my interpretation of the meaning of "status quo") was because of the word "normally". I assume that if that word led you astray it might lead other admins astray, and thus we are having this discussion about clarifying the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be a disagreement in what constitutes a "clear" version. In the discussion which gave rise to this thread, the definition of vandalism and/or edit-warring was contentious. Lectonar (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of vandalism or edit warring is only confusing to people who are willfully obtuse and stand to gain by claiming to not know what those terms mean; usually to win an argument by claiming that their good-faithed opponent is vandalizing when in fact they merely hold a different point of view. Vandalism is pretty easy to understand, as is edit warring. --Jayron3218:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I had nothing to do with the underlying dispute, and my only comments at Village pump (policy) were about what I believe to by an admin who, in good faith, came to a wrong conclusion about this policy (specifically, imagining that one of the two options for admins is "best practice"). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps clarity would follow from resequencing the text, and making clear that if an editor / group of editors have an issue with the version protected, the option to request returning to a point before the dispute is available:
When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Subject to this proviso, administrators exercise their discretion (without becoming involved in the content dispute) in deciding whether to protect the most current version of an article, or to revert to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version of the page before applying protection.
Editors convinced that the protected version contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider advice about the wrong version and recognise that requests that are continuations of an edit war and may warrant blocks.how an independent editor might view the suggestion and recognise that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked.
I really like the basic concept. Perhaps we could work in something to the effect that such a request is best made by someone who wasn't part of the edit warring?
I have a problem with any policy linking to The Wrong Version, which is clearly labeled "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Jayron, would the above change in wording suffice to convince you that this policy does not "clearly state [that] best practice is usually to protect the current version"?[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support EdChem version. Reference to "the Wrong Version" has always stuck in my craw. It's insulting and wrongheaded and is actually bad advice, which is why it passed off as the joke it is. We are serious people here and don't benefit by being laughed at. The "I don't care whose truck it is; Jimmy was holding it when I came in the room, so Jimmy gets to keep it, now stop squabbling, I'm busy" approach to parenting is stupid and lazy. It might well be Bobby's truck, and that matters. So let's not have that approach here. It doesn't strike me as how a good organization would be run. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that my suggestions above has some support, but implementing the above text in the existing text would be awkward. So, I offer a suggestion for a complete redraft of the section, with a side-by-side comparison with the current version:
Current Version
Proposed Version
On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.
Uninvolved administrators are authorised to use blocks to deal with isolated incidents of edit warring, as well as with persistent edit warring by particular users, thereby allowing normal page editing by others. Under this policy, administrators are granted discretion to temporarily impose full protection to end an ongoing edit war; in this situation, talk page discussion of all proposed edits must reach consensus for an edit to be implemented.
{{anchor|PREFER|prefer}}<!--former tags allow section referencing while accommodating section name changes. DO NOT REMOVE IT.-->
{{Policy shortcut|WP:PREFER}}
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. 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).
When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Administrators remain uninvolved when exercising their discretion, subject to this proviso, to decide whether to apply protection to the most current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version.
Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognise that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked.
Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes.
Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. When involved in a dispute, it is almost always wisest to respect the editing policies that bind all editors and call for input from an uninvolved administrator, rather than to invite controversy by acting unilaterally.
I recognise that I have made tweaks to the text proposed earlier, but I think they are not substantive. My proposed version integrates the material from the policy section not addressed earlier. EdChem (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Inviting input from all those who have commented above: Guy Macon, zzuuzz, Lectonar, Blueboar, Jayron32, and Herostratus. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the proposed version by EdChem. The soft "wrong" redirect is gone, and the matter of staying uninvolved while reverting is so much clearer now. Thank you for the work on that; my hat is off to you, Sir. Lectonar (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support , alt text for paragraph one suggested (but support the original as well @EdChem: what do you think? - reworded to make the lead focus of the paragraph to be about the protection policy not the blocking policy. — xaosfluxTalk15:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, your change goes back to the sequence in the current text. I understand your preference to mention the protection policy up front, rather than the blocking policy. My thinking was that the intro is about edit warring and that page protection comes in where a single block is not likely to address the problem, where there is not a clear-cut right / wrong in the dispute. So, the logic to me is from problem (edit warring) to solution in simple cases (response = block) to the more complex cases where this policy comes in. The current version reads to me like the default response is protection with blocks as an alternative in some cases, but I think the default is to block and only go to protection where the collateral damage of cutting off all editing is justified by the type of disruption involved and where a discussion to reach a consensus is needed to resolve a dispute involving multiple editors and / or complex issues where policy might support either version or where the application of policy is unclear, etc. Perhaps an alternative form of words is needed to better reflect my intent? EdChem (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled it out of the top, will leave here if anyone else wants to comment:
Under this policy, administrators are granted discretion to temporarily impose full protection to end an ongoing edit war; in this situation, talk page discussion of all proposed edits must reach consensus for an edit to be implemented. The blocking policy authorizes uninvolved administrators to use blocks to deal with isolated incidents of edit warring and persistent edit warring by particular users - allowing normal page editing by others.
My thoughts were that when a content dispute involving many editors on one article is occurring that blocking every one of the editors is generally not the best course of action. Maybe a more specific call out that the edit warring policy information should be referred to first? — xaosfluxTalk18:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all options should be on the table, and that no policy should say that one is preferable over the others. True, many admins will protect the page rather than dealing with six or seven people edit warring simply because it is less work, but it is also perfectly OK for an admin to pick everyone who went past 3RR and give them a short block. Sometimes that's what is needed to convince editors that we are serious about our edit warring policy. But only sometimes. Again, we need to trust the admin to decide what will work best in each particular situation. -Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, however a multi-party content dispute may not hit "3RR" thresholds - but still leave the page unstable for readers. — xaosfluxTalk23:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about an alternative wording, such as:
Content disputes and edit warring may be addressed with blocks issued by uninvolved administrators while allowing normal page editing by other editors. This policy grants administrators the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to ending an ongoing edit war. This alternative approach may be better suited to multi-party disputes and contentious content as talk page consensus becomes a requirement for requested edit to be implemented.
Maybe the emphasis is better this way, Xaosflux and Guy Macon? I've tried to imply when each approach is typically best, but without mandating admin action or inappropriately restricting discretion. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All three suggested versions look fine to me. Alas, it appears that no change to the wording will suffice to correct the original misinterpretation of policy that led me to start this discussion[6][7], so the best I can hope for here is clearer wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want there to exist a new level of protection that I invented: "Register protection", which prevents unregistered users from editing pages with this level. It will use the padlock File:Padlock mint.svg. Confirmation or autoconfirmation is not required to edit pages with this protection. All I need to do to edit pages with this protection is logging in or creating an account (the same required to create pages (not talk pages). Bemahewal (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hot pink
Yellow
Mint
Turquoise
Violet
Red-silver
Skyblue-Hot pink
Red-yellow
Tiger (pink)
Tiger
Camouflage
Neon
Fur
Zebra
Zebra 2
Done in this edit. Noah Kastin (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
