Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:PROTECT)
Jump to: navigation, search

Does the semi-protection seem to be unnecessary for now?[edit]

Given that creating pages requires an auto-confirmed access now, many people are editing more, trying to hit the limit of 10 edits and 4 days.

They may not have understood clearly, or even don't know what "protection" is, but they can edit semi-protected pages, which doesn't make sense.

There are still auto-confirmed users who create problematic articles.

IMO either the semi-protection limit needs to be raised or remove this policy. 333-blue at 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

When to up pending changes protection to semi-protection?[edit]

I was surprised not to see a protected mark on the Rian Johnson article, since I've been peripherally aware of the "controversy" surrounding his movie over the past two months and figured the article was probably the target of massive IP vandalism. When I checked the page history I saw that it was under pending changes protection, but literally every edit I can see appears to be either vandalism by an IP or new account or someone reverting it. Since the changes are never publicly visible until they are accepted, I guess there is no content problem, but when every edit over a period of months is a revert it just looks like an edit war -- wouldn't semi-protecting be better?

Same is basically true for Game of Thrones except the "invisible edit war" there has been ongoing for years.

Posting this here rather than RFPP since I'm legitimately not sure if I'm missing something like how maintaining unconfirmed editors' "right" to edit those particular articles except in extreme circumstances is important.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Editors can always ask at RFPP to increase the protection of an article. Admins will look at the history and decide if PC offers too little benefit. --NeilN talk to me 21:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not quite sure when PC offers benefits in general. I don't mean to raise the spectre of that discussion again, as I'm not opposed to PC for any ideological reasons, but all it has ever seemed to do for me or any page I'm familiar with is to increase the workload on dealing with vandalism because it is prone to technical glitches, doesn't actually seem to be that effective, and creates the possibility of hat collectors edit warring with good faith contributors (and this happens more often than we think). I know that I'm personally very unlikely to PC protect something if it falls short of semi-protection if only for the fact that it actually seems harder for a good faith user to contribute with it than with semi-protection, while making it easier for vandals to vandalize. I know before I got the bit, anytime I requested PC, most admins would just go ahead and flip the switch to semi. Not sure if this really answers the question, but I'm just bringing up some general thoughts that I've had and discussed with other admins recently. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
"I know before I got the bit, anytime I requested PC, most admins would just go ahead and flip the switch to semi." Not this admin. I like PC and find it very useful in certain situations. A BLP that gets constant updates (like a sports figure) but the occasional but steady BLP vio comes to mind. --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a technical nightmare that is more work than it's worth in those cases. I just personally can't seem to think of a case where it either doesn't create too much work (the edit history of the sport figure you described actually was one of my examples for when PC isn't worth the effort: you have too many good edits interwoven with bad ones during games, and it makes an absolute mess of the edit history and is a technical nightmare to deal with) or where semi-protection wouldn't be more effective. If it isn't really semi-protection worthy, I've always found it easier just to deal with it manually. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Salting test pages[edit]

Should titles like Test page delete pls or Testingtest123, or Test page be automatically WP:SALTed? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? The only one of those ever to be created is Test page and it's last edit was in November 2017 by a sysop, and before that was May 2014 by a then-admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I made those up as examples. I just mean any title that could only be used for useless test pages. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Salting wouldn't work well, as there are an infinite number of titles for test pages, and salting only affects one title.
Update: Here are some test page titles that got deleted today:

-Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisting would be better, but it might bring up other problems (i.e. there are legitimate titles that start with Test). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

True, a blacklist might stop some, but that which stops test pages might catch too many legitimate pages. I think maybe a bot or edit filter might catch the obvious ones. Still, I think the obvious titles should be salted. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Side question: how is salting different from the title blacklist? EEng 06:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • If you want technical details, I’m not your man, but the tl;dr is that salting prevents the creation of one specific title, while the blacklist uses regex to deny the creation of titles that meet specific conditions. Adding a title to the blacklist if done correctly prevents multiple iterations of the same concept (so Foo and Foo (bar) would both be prevented from creation). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. If someone has an explanation of how the blacklist is anything more than a list of "regular expressions" that happen to be literal strings, I'd like to hear it. EEng 19:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Describing Stephen as 'English' does not do justice at all to the very high esteem in which he was held by the whole of the nation. He should be described as British to reflect this esteem from the various peoples of the UK. I will change this, but await comments first. Varnebank (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

By all means. But who's Stephen? EEng 20:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Ten quid says it's Stephen Hawking. Varnebank, you posted this in the wrong place. Try Talk:Stephen Hawking. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)