Wikipedia talk:Protected deleted pages

Questions

Should we be saling pages that have never been through an actual XfD process?
Should we be preemptively salting articles that never existed?

--badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we not? —Centrx→talk • 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it overrides any chance at community consensus. Preemptively salting an article means that you think someone will disagree with you that the article should exist, and you're not willing to let the community at AfD discuss whether it needs to be deleted or not.--Prosfilaes 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, anyone is free to initiate a deletion review about a salted page. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are two separate questions. If a vandalism-only page is recreated more than twice, I'll salt it even if no AfD or similar process has been taken place. So, there is at least a case when we agree that salting is necessary even if no AfD has taken place. The criteria at WP:CSD are for articles that do not require discussion (this is the point Jeff will never agree about, I suppose, at least as regarding to A7 and G11).

The second question is tricker. Generally, one does not preventively protect pages. As a result, pages are not preventively protected as deleted either. However, I'd not set that as policy. If an article that has been decided to delete is likely to being recreated at a different title, and its original title is salted, I'd salt that other one as well. It's not the title that counts, it's the article itself. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify regarding the second case, the article did already exist and was deleted several times, just at a different title. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from cases of clear vandalism, I agree that an XfD process is probably wise before proceeding to this "salting" step. Would anyone object to adding wording to that effect? --Elonka 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not appropriate. Even in the best-case scenario of an innocent biography, if it is deleted multiple times by A7, it just going to keep being tagged by new page patrollers and repeatedly deleted without this. Anyone is able to bring the matter up on deletion review, and AfD is already horribly huge. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting pages

If it I didn't miss such a page that already exists - does anyone think that it would make sense to set up a page for non-admins to request protection of specific deleted pages? I'm of two minds about the idea - on one hand, it would probably allow for the protection of pages that non-admins come across (I'm thinking of a couple of purely vanity pages on my watchlist that keep getting recreated every couple months or so), but on the other hand, it would probably create a fair number of arguments over protection at the site, probably duplicating the same back and forth that has already taken place during the VfD process. Of course, there's always the possibility of just finding an admin and asking them to delete the page, but I have to wonder how if setting up a request page might find more. --DMG413 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP would be the central location for this, as with any other kind of page protection. Also, you could put a note about it with the speedy delete tag. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP works for what I was thinking of, though it seems more used for requesting protection of vandal-targeted pages rather than repeatedly deleted pages. As far as the speedy deletion process, that doesn't really solve the underlying problem when pages are created and re-created over a period of months. Thanks. --DMG413 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting

The new cascading protection allows users to create an article with other articles and protect it. For example, cascading protection on an AFD log page would lock all pages included. Questions:

Will this be considered in the near future?
Will there be a process for undoing the protection over time or are these protections permanent? Super NNesas 12:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Protected titles. There has yet been no exact decision on what to do about this. —Centrx→talk • 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salted articles coming up in with Special:Random

Just curious if there was away around this so salted pages won't come up.. I just ran into Team Arliss this way.. EnsRedShirt 08:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way around it per se. We try to keep the number of salted pages to a minimum (thus reducing the chance of randomly hitting one); there is Wikipedia:Protected titles, which avoids the problem entirely but is an imperfect solution for a couple of reasons; and there are plans to develop the MediaWiki software so that non-existent pages can be protected against creation, which is the best solution but has not yet been done. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this already been done? Take angry dragon - you can't create that page at all and the page itself does not exist, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page is protected via Wikipedia:Protected titles, which uses cascading protection in a convoluted way for this alternative purpose. It does make it so that a deleted page cannot be re-created, while not displaying the page in Special:Random or counting it in Special:Statistics, but it does have its problems. —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the talk page of a salted page

I noticed at WP:SPEEDY, talk pages of pages that do not exist is a criteria for speedy deletion (CSD-G8). Therefore, the talk page of an article should be automatically salted whenever said article is salted. —Tokek 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the talk page is often the first stop for questions about the deletion or discussion of sources that might legitimately warrant re-creation. In addition, salting is a maintenance hassle the purpose of which is to keep junk out of the encyclopedia, which is much less of a problem with talk pages: Talk pages of salted pages only rarely have any activity, let alone naughty activity, and they are not in the encyclopedia, the main namespace. —Centrx→talk • 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are protected deleted pages supposed to be un-salted after a period of time?

Just wondering. There are lots of salted pages now...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If not unsalted, which may require a more complex decision, they should at least be automatically moved to Wikipedia:Protected titles at some point. I am the only person who has actively unsalted pages, though. I need to make a script with some decision-making logic to do it more efficiently. —Centrx→talk • 02:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection time

Now that you can protect a deleted page directly rather than using transclusion, we probably should have some agreed upon norm for time. Should completely unencyclopedic titles / attack titles be protected indefinitely? How long should non-notable people/companies that could theoretically exist at some point in the future be protected? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? --B (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I always apply an indefinite protect. I have just noticed Basilmarket where the article was re-created the moment a short term protect expired. In the very few cases where there is a genuine need to remove a protect, it is no big deal to get it done. The article will probably need to go to deletion review anyway. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In most cases it is probably better to simply do a very-long-term protect like 5 years or 10 years. This is similar to the situation with open proxy IP address blocks. Just as an IP address will eventually be re-assigned, so too may an article title eventually warrant an article, whatever that title is. Indefinite protections and indefinite blocks on IP addresses are a maintenance hazard. —Centrx→talk • 06:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InDepenDance Day

unprotect the page so it can be fixed. Soccermeko (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]