Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Shortcuts: WT:PROTECT WT:PPOL

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. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

	*This page is not* for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages** All substantial edits to a protected page should be proposed on its talk page, and will be implemented if a consensus is found to do so. If the page is fully-protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{editprotected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.
	To request that a page be unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection To suggest that a move-protected page be renamed, see Wikipedia:Requested moves To request that a salted page be recreated or restored, see Wikipedia:Deletion review

Archives
Archive 1 December 2003 - February 2005 Archive 2 April 2005 - February 2007 Archive 3 February 2007 - May 2007 Archive 4 April 2007 - May 2007 Archive 5 June 2007 - August 2007 Archive 6 August 2007 - December 2007 Archive 7 January 2008 - April 2008 Archive 8 April 2008 -

[edit] Request

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Wikipedia page has her middle name in the title. This article should be titled "Barack Hussein Obama." Thank you.

[edit] Since when are U2 'alternative'

They were pretty mainstream last time I checked.

[edit] User pages

I wish to propose the reversal of a change effected earlier this year concerning the semi-protection of user pages. Specifically, I wish to contest the re-introduction of the requirement that user pages should only be protected when "subject to heavy vandalism". To give a summary of the timeline:

1 July 2004: The original policy concerning user pages required that they be "subject to repeated vandalism".
12 December 2006: Citing "common practice", the policy is updated to state that "Userpages are not encyclopedic articles and are exempt from many mainspace-specific policies (Ownership of articles and the three-revert rule, to take two examples). Userpages may be semi-protected regardless of whether there has been any previous vandalism to the page, and need not be unprotected unless the owner wishes it."
6 March 2007: Semi-protection policy merged with the protection policy; allows "User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user."
28 March 2008: MZMcBride re-introduces the clause, "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user and when the pages are subject to heavy vandalism." She gives her rationale on a talk page discussion, to which no-one responds (neither favourably nor unfavourably).

Whilst I understand MZMcBride's arguments, I find that the present policy frustrates new constructive editors who take offence at having their user page defaced, and find themselves unable to do anything until it has been vandalised for some unwritten minimum number of times. This is even more applicable to RC patrollers, who would eventually inevitably be targeted. Finally, keep in mind that this is an "opt-in" decision... users who don't wish to have their user page semi-protected simply have to refrain from applying for it. Opinions? Gail (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We did discuss this last March (has it really been over a year?), with no solution. Personally, I think people need to understand it's going to happen. If someone vandalized my userpage, I (or a RC patroller) reverts it, and life goes on. If you're RC patrolling, the likelihood of getting vandalized goes up because users just randomly lash out at whoever's wrecking their "fun". It's not like you can't do nothing. You revert it. Some RC patrollers use rollback, popups, twinkle, and the half-dozen others that have popped up. It's just a userpage, and I'm still opposed to just protecting "upon request" (and I don't do them). If there is vandalism (the threshold being a lot less than articles), the it'll be protected.

Look for Steel will have the opposite opinion of me. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 05:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of that discussion. I think Steel explained his point well, so I will try to avoid repeating any arguments that were already raised. However, I feel that refusing to grant semi-protection following a defacement, no matter how minor or isolated the incident was, is actually hurting Wikipedia because it is losing us constructive editors. Whilst I'm sure that most admins and established editors are capable of completely ignoring personal insults, this is not the case for everyone. Several academics, professionals, children, and any other digital immigrants are not accustomed to the culture shock of being insulted by random strangers; whilst it is true that such attacks may be easily reverted, the fact that we are doing nothing to prevent their re-occurrence is often interpreted as a sign of indifference and passiveness on our part. If nothing else, the "heavy" qualifier should definitely be removed from the clause. Gail (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Gail. --Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then they're not going to be on Wikipedia long. It's hard to avoid controversy here (I had someone call me a wiki-Nazi, wiki-stalk me for several months across WMF wiki's just because I enforced a couple policies). Wikipedia isn't a place where intellectuals come to politely exchange information or ask legitimate question. It's cutthroat. You're going to get your hands dirty, and it's not going to be pretty. If you think it's suppose to be all rosy and kind, then I sorry you're been mislead into that.

Yes, we should try to keep users around and not loose them. But I don't believe in sheltering them or treating them like they're children. If your user page gets vandalized, I'm not going to come running asking if you're okay, immediately indefinitely protect your userpage so it doesn't happen again, and track down the user and lecture them (they'll probably get a boilerplate warning).

I don't protect userpages just upon request, but that's not to say that other admins don't. Just ask at WP:RFPP, usually they get done. I just leave the requests alone. -Royalguard11(T) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That might currently be the case in practice, but surely it is supposed to be a civil and courteous environment, and we should take what steps we reasonably can to bring it a little closer to that goal. Protecting user pages on request (as long as they are not themselves being used for abusive purposes) seems eminently reasonable, and nothing like the mollycoddling implied in your remarks ~~below~~.--Kotniski (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree our guidelines should be aspirational as well as practical. — Satori Son 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not raising this issue for myself (my user page is already semi-protected due to past vandalism), but on behalf of the newer users. I never asked anyone to go running after users asking if they're okay. Addressing a user's concern about getting his/her page vandalized again is nothing more than a courtesy to show our appreciation of their contribution. And yes, I'm aware that several admins do not follow the current policy (I've seen user pages of admins being indefinitely fully-protected), but that highlights even further the need to amend the policy to standardize the practice. Gail (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Royalguard is exactly right: Wikipedia is not a particularly friendly place, and those with thin skins will likely not last long.

However, Gail is right as well: There does not seem to have been a predominant consensus for this change. I, for one, believe the determination of whether to semi-protect a talk page should be left to administrative discretion on a case-by-case basis, and this newly(?) included language is overly restrictive and unnecessarily bureaucratic. — Satori Son 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the language to remove the "heavy" requirement, in line with what seems to be the former consensus and current pratice. It still only says administrators "may" apply protection, so those like Royalguard should not feel under any obligation to consider such requests.--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the amended version is fair and representative of the current practice. Gail (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Current language: "User pages, but not user talk pages, when requested by the user following vandalism." Sounds fine to me. Gail: Thanks for the heads-up. It was very considerate of you to inform me of this discussion and I really appreciate it. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy that you agree with the amendment :) Gail (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)