Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

create protection (salting) policy

The current policy on salting is pretty open ended - however, the usual practice is to go straight to indefinite full protection.

That seems rather excessive to me. Just because one person tried to spam the same page ~3-4 times in a day (which is the most common reason for salting) doesn't make the subject non-notable forever. As such, I see no reason the default practice shouldn't be more like semi-protecting for a month rather than full protecting forever. The protection can always be increased if needed. (Yes, I know the protection can be lifted, but the procedure of getting it lifted can be burdensome to new and relatively new users.)

Other thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. The options of semi-protection and user-block should be implemented first, since they are more in proportion to the problem. General rule: solve a problem with the minimal collateral damage. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but I think once it gets to salting, people want to do something that'll definitely stick, and in many cases (certainly not all) a plausible page is hard to imagine. There seem to be nearly 1000 fully protected (period not specified in the listing) [1], and less than 500 semi-protected [2] - a lot of which, oddly, are in a single user's userspace. Rd232 ^talk 09:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have swapped a zero? I see less than 50 semi-protected, and thousands of full protected. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought only autoconfirmed users could create pages anyways. Semi-salting could solve many problems I guess since I believe most salted pages would have be created by newer users. In any case, the length shouldn't be forever. You could easily say 6 months of protection, and even that's probably excessive. Maybe the suggestion should be a month or two? -Royalguard11(T) 02:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You have to be registered to create a page, but not auto-confirmed. In fact, the number one reason people register is to create their first page. As noted above, I certainly don't get the practice of going straight to indefinite full-protect just because a page is re-created a few times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought that. Maybe I was thinking of moving pages. I know when I registered the first thing I did was create a new page. -Royalguard11(T) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have waned, but I'd certainly like there to be better guidance on when indefinite salting is appropriate. I think there are many indefinitely-salted pages that shouldn't be. It might be sensible to protect a repeatedly recreated page for six months or a year, but unless there is compelling reason to do so (through community consensus?), banishing the possibility of a page forever is a little un-Wiki-like. Chubbles (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Put a link on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) to get some more input. I am following this dicsussion. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should incorrectly placed protection templates be allowed in user 'sandboxes'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After a lot of discussion it was decided that in answer to the question a change in policy was not needed. Common sense should be applied and if a page is actively being edited misplaced protection templates are allowable. What constitutes actively edited is up to the discretion of the editor removing the template but a rough guideline would be edits within the last 24 hours. There was also some discussion about the current wording in the policy and a form of words was agreed upon.

---

Should incorrectly placed protection templates be allowed in user sandboxes which are clearly not for public consumption? Dpmuk (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is that I recently copy and pasted {{adminbacklog}} to a user subpage so that I could work on this protected template and propose a new (working) version to an admin. As such this page then included a protection template even though it was not actually protected. This template was then removed as being incorrectly placed. I feel that this should not have happened but may well have been within policy due to this section above where a change to this policy was proposed. The policy was then updated when no comments were forthcoming. In my opinion incorrectly placed templates should be allowed in user 'sandboxes' for two reasons:

a) They allow people to find out how the templates work - these templates aren't always (correctly) added or removed by admins and even new admins may wish to test them first.

b) To allow a working version of a page to be kept that can easily be copied and pasted back into the protected page without extra effort.

Additionally I feel that allowing this is in keeping with the purpose of user subpages and that as these templates are there to inform readers or editors about the protection status of a page then no harm is done by them being present on a user subpage that is clearly not for public consumption. Dpmuk (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be much ado about nothing. Why not just <nowiki> or comment out the protection template while you work up the sandbox version? The reason it was removed from your page was to remove it from this maintenance category. –xeno^talk 16:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern isn't so much with the specific action in this case but rather the change in policy which was only supported by one user. I accept that the user made best efforts to get feedback on their propose change but it has by default been accepted and I disagree with it. Personally I'd like to propose that {{pp-meta}} is changed so that user sub pages aren't added to that category (or are added to a seperate category) but I can't do so at the moment as it goes against policy. As two editors are disagreeing on a policy we obviously need outside opinions. I also have a real problem with any policy having large changes, such as this, made to it with only one editor commenting. (As an aside I think that even if it is kept the section needs rewording to make it clearer). Dpmuk (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am fixing pages in that maintenance category almost every day for the last half year now. In this time I have removed incorrectly placed protection templates from all possible pages, including several userpages a day. This is the first time an editor raises objections of a principal nature. I have been arguing with the above editor a little about this subject, and would like to repeat here my point of view that there is no reason to have a protection template in unprotected pages, including userpages. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone looking for pages that are protected should look at Special:Protectedpages and not Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages nor Category:Wikipedia protected pages anyways. The categories are helpful, but the Protectedpages is database generated I believe and should be more accurate. Is it suppose to be there? Technically no, but the template seems to have be modified to not even show if the page isn't protected anyways. -Royalguard11(T) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me like the alternative is that the protection template may end up being dropped by mistake when updating a template. Yesterday I was trying to work out how to modify {{ANImove}} to allow it to link to a specific section of WP:ANI and subsequently to an archived section. As an admin, there was not going to be an extra layer of checking my work (a layer which may also miss this!) I believe that this proposal is a good one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

From the above it would seem that myself and one other editor (Od Mishehu) are for allowing misplaced protection templates in this instance, one isn't clear but seems to me to be leaning that way (Royalguard11) and one (xeno) feels it's much ado about nothing so presumably isn't too fussed either way. One editor (Debresser) opposes allowing misplaced templates in this case saying there is "no reason" to allow it but does not counter the reason I give (and is later also given by Od Mishehu). Their objection also seems to be largely based on the fact that such pages end up in a maintenance category. In light of this I propose removing the last section of the template section and adding a new section "Protection templates" with the following wording:

"Protection templates (i.e. those that indicate the protection level of a page, e.g. {{pp-vandalism}}) should only be applied to pages that are actually protected at that level. An exception to this rule is sub-pages in the User: namespace which are used as sandboxes and clearly not for public consumption [ref to this discussion]."

Accompanying this would be a change to the {{pp-meta}} template so it did not add pages to the maintenance category. If people are concerned that users may incorrectly place protection templates on pages that are sub-pages in the User: namespace but are not sandboxes then they could be placed in a different category on the understanding that the category shouldn't necessarily be empty. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many people work on templates. Some do so in template namespace, others in userspace. Some of those might get protected, many will not. I find protection templates on templates and userpages that should never have them. I used to find them there after many months (before I worked through the backlog). Since protection templates are not what makes the protection, there is no reason to have them untill the template gets actually protected. At that moment they should be added by the protecting admin, or at any later moment to the unprotected documentation page. The proposal has no rationale or merit behind it, except for the appearent dislike of the editor pushing it of the fact that I touched his userpage. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read mine or Od Mishehu comments? You seem to be totally missing the point. What I'm taking about (and I believe Od Mishehu is to) is when users are working on a new version in their user space of a template that is already protected in the main Template space. When an admin updates this template in Template space with the new one from User space they will not be changing the protection level as it's already protected. If the template has to be removed while the draft is in User space it is possible (or even likely) that the admin will forget to re-add it, after all they've not just changed the protection level of the page. Additionally I've still yet to see any reason why you wish to disallow it, except for the fact it fills up a category (an issue that can be resolved) - I understand that you don't feel it is necessary but so far you've given no reason why you actually oppose it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You're right I was, and still am, really unhappy with you editing my user page. In my opinion that goes against the principle of how user pages are to be used. However that is not the reason I'm pushing this. I disagree with the change you made to policy, as it inconvenienced me, and as that was unilateral (I accept not for lack of trying) I feel there's no more reason for your version to be there than mine. Hence my attempt to get outside views - there's something I disagree with and I now want to change it, you're actions merely notified me of the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If all you are talking about is users working on templates that are already protected, then first of all, they are likely to be experienced users, who won't forget to add a protection template. When laying the finishing touch to the template, before pasting it or putting the {{editprotected}} tag, that is when you add the appropriate protection template. And I already mentioned before, that there is no rule on Wikipedia that says that you must have a protection template on a protected page. So I really don't think you should be making all kinds of exceptions to simple guidelines and pp-meta for no good reason at all. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an admin above admitting that he was likely to forget to re-add it so I'm not sure how that arguement applies. What 'simple guideline' do you refer to? As I state above I think not allowing it goes against our user page guidelines. Dpmuk (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also notice that the only people who remove protection templates from unprotected pages are me and a certain unreliable bot, so if worst comes to worst, you can put it back. There once was such an editor. He put the protection template back after I had removed it, with edit summary "not so fast". Obviously I left his page alone, and after a few days he finished working on it and it was copied or protected. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If that admin is likely to forget the protection template, then first of all he should consider doing other necessary tasks on Wikipedia. :) But the main point is that even if he forgot to add the protection template, nothing is lost. It is not the template that makes the protection. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The simple guideline I am referring to says "don't put a template on a page if it has no business being there". Don't put {{Unsourced}} on an article with sources, and don't put a protection template on an unprotected page. No need for it. And no need for any exceptions to this rule. And I understand Xeno's point of view to be like mine in this. Debresser (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link - I can't seem to find the guideline or policy with that in. Dpmuk (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean there isn't one. There is a clear guideline at WP:USERPAGE that "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." Given that you can't seem to point me to a guideline, policy or even a consensus that indicates that incorrectly placed templates are not allowed in user space I think you're arguement that I'm proposing a change to the status quo holds no water - there isn't an accepted status quo. I disagree that nothing in lost if the template is not added back in - readers and editors lose information. You argue that not having the template on a protected page inconveniences no one but the exact same argument can be used about having the template on protected pages in user space (when these are not for public consumption).

Let me repeat here that you are the first editor in more than several hundred (by now), who feels that this is an infringement on his userspace. You are being very verbal about it, making this RfC and this proposal, but the fact is that most editors feel that this is regular housekeeping and nothing to get hung about. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) By your own admission above at least one other editor has objected. Additionally I suspect many (most) editors think your action is backed by policy without checking that it actually is. Editors may also not be happy with your actions but think it not worth doing anything about it. Taken together I'd suggest this the lack of comments can hardly be seen as support for your actions. I'm still interested to find out what made you start removing these templates and what policy or guideline you use as justification. Dpmuk (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are getting the facts wrong. He did not object to the fact of me editing in his userspace. He just informed me that he was working on something and that he would be done soon, without any general comments about his userspace. And that is fine with me, off course. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm more confused about where you're coming from - if you think it's OK sometimes why not all the time? I also don't object to you editing in my user space. What I do object to is one editor deciding what I should be allowed there without any policy, guideline, or even consensus to back them up. Although I understand (but disagree with) the arguments about instruction creep and unnecessarily complicating things I am still no closer to understanding why you fundamentally object to incorrectly placed protection templates in user space - what harm does it do the encyclopedia? Dpmuk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mind because I was sure that editor would remove it afterwards. He never wanted it to be there for more than the short time needed for him to prepare the template. And he was an admin who knew how to correctly apply protection. On the other hand there are many editors (including admins) out there who apply a protection template, and have no idea what they are doing: they think the protection template makes the protection; they use the wrong protection template; and in the end they forget about the protection template and it hangs on for months (sometimes even being transcluded on other pages). Some seem to think that any template must have a protection template, because that is what they saw on whatever template they looked to to mimic! That is why I (and a bot) make a daily round. Sometimes applying noinclude tags; sometimes replacing a mistaken protection template for the correct one; sometimes just deleting them; sometimes solving the problem by moving the protection template to a documentation page; or even other, more complicated, cases. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That all makes perfect sense for articles, or indeed any page that it is intended the public see. I would question the need for it given that the template shows nothing if the page isn't protected but if you want to do it I've no objection to it. However I still don't see how any of your arguments apply to pages that aren't intended for public view. It also smacks of penalizing those that do know what they're doing because some people don't and use them incorrectly. It would also seem to me to be more civil to post a message on their talk page about the possible problem rather than automatically assuming that they don't know what they're doing and making changes to something they're working on. I've still yet to see any justification in terms of policy, guidelines or consensus for removing protection templates (at all although I accept common sense applies on public pages) - even if you accept that the length of time you've been doing it gives the same process some legitimacy that can't have been the case when you started out. Dpmuk (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really care one way or another about protection templates in userspace, but I think this proposal just adds instruction creep. I think the new change actually makes sense and seems to be a reasonable compromise: In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates. Don't automatically assume that the template needs protection, but if one was already there then it's already protected. No, templates shouldn't be added to pages that aren't protected but they don't seem to show up anyways (and I believe there is a bot that removes them from non-protected pages). -Royalguard11(T) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no way assuming that templates automatically needs protection - I'm referring here mainly to working on new versions of templates that are protected, e.g. I was working on a new version of {{adminbacklog}} in my user space when the protection template was removed. I didn't assume this template needed protection I know it did as it already had it. I'm also intrigued how you think my proposal is instruction creep but the addition Debresser made isn't - there both new instructions, just different instructions. As stated above I'm also concerned that this goes against the consensus about the use of user pages. Finally I don't think that edit is in any way a comprimise - it's exactly the same as what I and at least one other editor object to. Not to mention that the new statement doesn't make sense to me "in view of this" implies what comes next follows automatically from what comes before and in my opinion it doesn't. Comprimise to me would be to remove the last sentence and not have policy either way - there currently appears to be no consensus either way. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It just seems redundant to say "Only put protection templates on protected pages". It doesn't need to be said because it's common sense.

In my experience many editors don't have this specif "common sense". One of them is all over this discussion. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are referring to me and I find that comment uncivil and I ask that you please refrain from making personal attacks against me. We have different ideas of how to apply common sense (see my reply below) and given that people here have supported both our views I don't think either of us lack common sense. Even when I've disagreed with you and struggled to understand your point of view I have not accused you of lacking common sense or attacked you in any way. Please refrain from these sort of comments in future. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to you. But without any intent to be uncivil. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have no reason to presume otherwise I'll believe you when you say it wasn't your intention - we have all done things which other people have viewed differently to how you view them. Dpmuk (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've made some of my comments about the recent change above in reply to Royalguard11. I'm also somewhat confused by the new sentence concerning doc pages as this seems to go against all that Debresser has argued for above. Often the doc page is less well protected than the template itself so surely placing the protection page on the doc page is in error as the page isn't protected. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason to be confused. Let me explain. I decided that there is no reason to specify about userpages in the policy page. That's all. They are still included in the general rule though. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was that you seem to be allowing doc pages to have templates that indicate a different level of protection than they actually have but above you seem to be arguing against this for all pages. Dpmuk (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. I was talking about inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags. Where we always add categories and interwiki's. And protection templates. All the things that are not for the docpage itself, but part of the metadata of the template. Because of the includeonly tags they do not affect the docpage. this is one of the things we have docpages for: to separate the template itself from its metadata. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well one possible answer presents itself - that is to change your new second sentence to:

If a template is protected then the protection template should be placed on the template's documentation page.

If the template is in include only tags then editors can edit a copy of either the template or the document page in their user space without the template being "incorrect". Obviously I wouldn't expect templates to change overnight, instead they'd just slowly change to the new system, and it may even be worth putting a footnote to the effect. As you comment the documentation does seem the most obvious page for them. Dpmuk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not entirely happy with the way you edited the policy why that section was actively being discussed and when no consensus had been reached. In this instance I think no harm has been done as it basically says the same thing but as this discussion was ongoing I'd have liked to have seen even a "minor copyedit" discussed here (or the change not happen to this discussion is finished) as it may have effected the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason to say "should be placed on the template's documentation page", because there is no imperative. But there are minor reasons to prefer this. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Your wording leaves it open to editor discretion and, in my opinion, doesn't capture that the preference for the documentation page. "Should" maybe too strong a word but I think the policy needs to be clear enough that if an editor moves them to the doc page they should stay there. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, but think this point is too minor to actively oppose. In general I like modest formulations. May be part of my European upbringing. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest it's not a big thing with me either - it just seems more in keeping with the growing use of documentation pages (I believe there is consensus that they should be used). I'm not by any means saying that someone should go out and change what already exists but that it should be borne in mind when creating new templates or updating them. How about "It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself." as that clearly shows it's the preferred option without forcing it on people - should mean there's no arguments about someone moving the templates but at the same time shouldn't cause editors many problems if they don't abide by it. Dpmuk (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. Policy has always allowed users to work on pages, with protection templates, for a time in their userspace. If nothing further is done after a while then all sorts of people come in and untransclude templates, images, and categories. Policy has always allowed for this also. It's also a good way of finding dodgy forgotten-about pages to blank or delete. Editors should not generally add any protection template to any page which is not protected. Not just templates. If they do it will either be removed, or it will be ignored for a while and then removed. Because it is ultimately wrong. Endorsement by policy is not necessary. If the existence of userpages in maintenance categories is becoming an issue then they should be sub-categorised. In this respect I favour something like the current proposal, but I would also prefer it if the entire section about protection templates was reduced to a single sentence: "Protection templates should not be used on unprotected pages". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, that makes sense. I wasn't sure what the "official policy" on this was, but I think if anything that does make sense. If your editing for a time yes, if for a long time then no. -Royalguard11(T) 03:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. At the moment, that practically comes down to the time until my (or the bot's) next round, which is about once a day. I don't think there is any practical way to do it otherwise. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what zzuuzz is saying but not to Debresser statement. I totally agree that common sense should allow actively being worked on pages to have incorrect templates for the reason discussed above and which other people here has suggested has been the status quo - and that this shouldn't need to be included in policy. However following discussion with Debresser they seem intent on making sure the category is empty after his rounds, even if that means removing the template from a page that was being worked on a minute before. I don't see how it's not practical to look at the edit log and if it looks like the page is being actively edited (say edits in the last 48 hours) then to allow the template to stay. This has been my stance from the beginning, however Debresser seems to have a very different idea of how to apply "common sense" in this case and that has led to this RfC - in an attempt to get clarity. I'd be happy not making a change to policy but still think some sort of consensus needs to be reached. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with you here, and perhaps that will be out consensus. While leaving the policy as it is, there is no reason why I shouldn't check the userpage history before making an edit. And if there has been a constructive edit (no bots or vandalism) in the last let's say 24h, I will leave the page alone. We are only talking about 3-8 pages a day, so that shouldn't be too much trouble. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached a conclusion. I'm sorry it's taken so much discussion but it seems like we're there. I'm happy to leave it up to editors discretion when they feel a page is no longer being actively edited bearing in mind the discussion above. If everyone else is happy I'm happy to close this RfC with this understanding of how common sense should be applied. There is still a little bit of discussion (above) on the wording to be used in the policy but seeing as how everyone seems to agree on the principle it's just a matter of sorting out the wording I don't think we need the RfC to remain open. Dpmuk (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wording you propose above, and the closure. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've closed this discussion and left what I think is a reasonable summary above. If anyone involved above disagrees with either the closure or the wording above please feel free to reverse it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Protection against bots

Is there any way of protecting a page only against edits by bots? There are some pages that are consistently subjected to incorrect edits by bots. There is no other reason to protect the page from real users. For a concrete example, see [3]. This is just one; there are a number of others that are ongoing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In short, no, there is no existing technological way to do that. In practice, it would be better to figure out what foreign interwiki link is causing the screw-up and fix it than to block bot edits anyway. The bot doesn't manufacture links, so it adding a bad one means some foreign wiki already has the same bad link, only in reverse. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Great—I will pursue things that way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding {{nobots}} to the page would prevent exclusion compliant bots from editing. –xeno^talk 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Retirement Protection

I've found a lot of retired users' user pages and often even their user talk pages indef protected, sometimes but not always at user request. What basis are admins protecting these user talk pages on? We don't even protect the talk pages of deceased users, why should we ever protect the page of a retired user unless it's currently receiving vandalism? I don't think such protection is in accord with policy. Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably done when such a page becomes vandalised and since the owner is not around it is preferred to protect the page. But that is just a guess. I am as curious as you are. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the logic would be that such pages are not in use, and may not be watched for vandalism, and may be more vulnerable to vandalism, because people who've retired may well have made enemies. So protection here is a response to seeing vandalism and wishing to make sure it doesn't happen again. Whether that's within protection policy, I don't know; it may just be application of WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The logic I can see, but how it fits into policy I can't, especially when we have a specific rule for deceased users that expressly says we don't protect the talk page. I've been going through indef full-protected user talk pages and finding many, far too many, who have been protected in variance to policy. These are a small part of the process but really most were never vandalized at all. Most were "user has left the project and requested nobody post here anymore" or such things as this; often they appeared to be making the request to blank and protect so that nobody could see their long list of warnings. Amazingly, these were granted. Most that I'm dealing with were protected years ago, so I don't see any good reason to keep them protected even if there was vandalism. I just want to make sure we don't have a strange consensus that retired users who request protection get it but dead users don't.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of the reports I'm working from. All of the comments and unprotections were done by me: User:MZMcBride/Sandbox_5.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll see other issues there and I haven't gotten very far down the list but I've left all of the retired users until I got some comments on what authority there is for this. The whole thing started when I started working my way through Wikipedia:Database_reports/Indefinitely_fully_protected_talk_pages because it had too many indef blocked user talk pages that were making the report impossible to use. There had been a discussion on this at AN regarding getting rid of the very old ones here; and a much earlier one that said that generally 6 months protection was long enough for indef blocked users. I then started to notice that many of the weren't protected blocked at all which caused me to request McBride run this report.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC) - but then that's all another issue. Just wanted to give you the reference reports and explain what all the markup was for. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that fully protecting user talk pages should be incredibly rare. I see no basis in policy to protect when users retire (or even die). I also don't see a particularly strong rationale to add an exception for those two groups. Yes, a dead person won't be reading their user talk page, but they surely also won't care what's delivered to it. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with protection for deceased users' talkpages, but not retired ones. If they don't want to come back, means they don't care. If their pages are much vandalised we might semi-protect them. We might even make that a part of the guidelines. Full protection I find unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and it seems that if we protect them it should only be for a limited time, say max six months as that's what the precedent is for indef blocked users under normal circumstances.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest the following be added to the User page section of this page in order to clarify what our policy is - and has been all along; addressing socks only because some admins seem to think the protection is standard, want to make it clear that it's not (and as I understand it, never has been) policy:

Retired users

Retired users follow the same rule as deceased users. Their talk pages should not be protected absent substantial current vandalism and never indefinitely. Requests to protect the page by the retiring user should not normally be entertained.

Blocked users

Blocked users' user pages and user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected. In extreme cases of abuse of the {{unblock}} template, the talk page may be protected for a short time to prevent the user from editing his or her own talk page. This should rarely be done as it prevents the user from requesting an unblock through the normal process. When required, it should be implemented for a brief period which should never exceed the length of the block or six months, whichever is shorter. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sock#Sock_puppets_.28registered_accounts.29; their pages are not normally protected.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is fine with me. But we should have more input on this than from 2-3 editors. I'd like to see 7 at least. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented since no one is commenting, comments above are already from more than 3 editors (Debresser's 7 is arbitrary) and in any case this has been up for over 10 days without further comment and it's merely a restatement of longstanding policy. See also WP:SILENCE. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with you and the edit you made, I still think that policy should not be decided with such small input. The number 7 was indeed arbitrary. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Narwhal horn

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-function-of-narwhals-tooth.htm this website suggests that the narwhal horn is actually a specialized sensory apparatus... does anyone know of any sources that collaborate this claim? It seems pretty plausible to me and I don't think the article really mentions anything about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.193.45 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to ask such a question, WP:RS/N is the place to go. Gigs (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hi there,

I come here after a recent semi-protection discussion at Vanadium.

I felt that the semi-protection was not warranted, let alone for such length, and so I questioned it. After some unfruitful exchanges with the protecting admin and other regular editors of that page, I requested unprotection in the appropriate forum. Another admin came, explained his interpretation of the policy, and lowered the length from 6 months to 24 hours.

Both admins were obviously trying to do the right thing. Therefore, I would like to discuss the current semi-protection policy and make sure that it does not allow such wide range of interpretation of the criteria for protection eligibility and lengths. I feel that more quantitative guidelines and perhaps some examples might help.

During the debate, the protecting admin said

"We (i.e. project Elements) do have positive experience with users, anons or registered, posting a comment at talk page first."

Indeed, my research suggests that there has been a recent surge of similarly questionable protection in the area, which I am pursuing separately. I am concerned that WP:ELEMENTS, as a project, and perhaps also other projects that I am not aware of, might be subconsciusly driving towards a clique-ownership of the articles, taking a blanket position that IPs are up to no good, and effectively changing the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, at least within that project, by discouraging WP:BOLDness and moving towards mandated discussion before editing.

And maybe such attitude is justified. As a registered user myself and having made significant contributions in other projects, I can relate to the feeling that time spent fixing vandalism could be better spent in other more creative activities. I can also see how days may be changing for WP, whose IP contributions are naturally getting less substantial and more disruptive. So maybe this attitude is actually now justified, and we should debate openly the option of changing this policy accordingly. This is another goal of bringing the matter here.

Personally, I take a more idealistic view, that eventually vandals will learn (through better education, both from the institutions and WP editors) that it's both uncool and pointless to vandalise WP. I also think that very often the potential of IP contributions is underestimated. Please note I used "potential", which is different from "history". In fact, one thing I disagree with the current policy is that too much emphasis is put on the ratio between good and bad IP edits in the recent history, forgetting that history does not always tell us much about what could be happening tomorrow.

Finally, I think that the policy should better highlight alternative tools that admins have at their disposal to combat vandalism, for instance specific warnings/blocks and Abuse Filters to increase the amount of vandalism that gets reverted without manual intervention.

Thank you for any comments. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)