Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

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

AE protection requests[edit]

We've had a flood of 500/30 AE protection requests in the past couple days. While I'm not reluctant to protect if there's a need, I believe Ged UK's "Whilst the ARB motion is clear, the remedies say that it may be enforced by various methods, of which PP is one. However, looking at the edit history of this specific article, I don't believe that protection is necessary in this case at this time." is the right approach (i.e., it's not an automatic protect). Thoughts? --NeilN talk to me 21:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevant post in favor of blanket 500/30 protection: User talk:Ged UK#Hi! Airplaneman 00:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If you write a rule someone will try to enforce it. The relevant ARBCOM decision (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30) is fairly clear that IPs and new users are "prohibited" from editing Israel/Palestine articles. I personally think this is an example of ARBCOM attempting to create policy by fiat. In practice edits will often be accepted if they're not controversial and many articles will remain unprotected. ARBCOM themselves talk about using PC protection (huh?). I therefore personally go with the NeilN interpretation that this is an extra set of tools for enforcement of dispute resolution where necessary (but to be used fairly liberally). If we wanted to ECP every relevant page we should run it past VPP and write a big batch script to protect them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for starting a discussion here about this, Neil. I'd been a little confused on what "the right approach" is to 500/30 as well. I'm in agreement with zzuuzz and Ged UK here. I'm inclined to use 500/30 protection liberally (but not automatically) to enforce ARBCOM sanctions on articles that need it, with demonstrated need being any disruptive edits that relate to the ARBCOM decision. Airplaneman 16:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey there. I simply wanted to keep articles open as much as possible, which is my general approach to protection, which is the main admin task that I do. I understand ArbCom's position, but it's such a wide scope that I can't think that every single article that might possibly be related to the broad subject was intended to be locked. The articles I didn't protect had no edits from accounts that would be affected by protection, in around a month, so it seemed to me that they weren't targets of edits that might be problematic. I'd recommend that keeping articles open as much as possble this be the way to proceed. GedUK  10:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above. Like I told the sock on my talk page (who ironically recently requested many pages for ECP), if an admin wants to protect or a user wants to revert and edit solely because of the ArbCom decision, I won't fight them. But I for one am more or less treating all articles the same. It doesn't make sense to protect an article that has experienced zero disruption, under any protection level, or here where there was but one disruptive edit over the past year, or here where only constructive edits have come from non-EC users. No thanks. Remember rules can be broken. We're putting the encyclopedia first. Again, I won't edit war, but if I see a good edit from an anon get reverted because they "aren't allowed to edit there", I will happily restore it as if it were my own edit. Use your judgement... the rules are there to prevent disruption, not to prevent progress MusikAnimal talk 16:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Airplaneman's "liberally but not automatically" seems to be the correct standard to me. I'd love to hear from some arbs who wrote the sanction to know if this is at least roughly in line with their intentions. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Quicker alternative?[edit]

Are there any quicker alternatives to requesting page protection? Almost every occasion of massive vandalism on a page is due to some spurious, usually controversial real-world event that by the time a page gets protected, vandals have all but lost interest in. RFPP has been criminally slow lately, and in my opinion isn't really a viable option for most vandalism cases. Lizard (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no real alternative other than more admins clerking the requests. If it's a major issue with a lot of edits then an admin is likely to swoop in anyway. tutterMouse (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been busy for a while finding sources. You can always leave me a talk page message if there is a major problem with a particular page or this one gets backlogged. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)