Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 1

I don't agree with the policy of "Do not edit a protected page" as applied to pages temporarily protected to stop an edit war.

1. Sometimes it's possible for a sysop to improve the text in a way that all parties can agree on; there should be an exception for this, at least
2. Freezing a page implies endorsement with that version. What if there's a better, more neutral version?
3. What if there's a typo?

--Uncle Ed 16:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

1) Perhaps this is something that needs to be built into the official mediation system when it starts?

2) The problem here is that if I am in an edit war, my version will seem to me to be the "better, more neutral version". Freezing a page should not imply any endorsement of any version.

3) The issue is that non-sysops can't fix typos in protected pages, so why should sysops be able to? Angela.

1)Then they should unprotect the page after reaching a consensus, then edit it.

2)True...

3)Angela, the reason that sysops are sysops is because they are well-trusted by the rest of the community. I accidentally made a rather major edit to USA PATRIOT Act while it was protected, and I corrected a typo or two on User:Kingturtle's page... but my opinion is that as long as the edit does not have anything to do with the reason of protection (vandalism of the Main Page, for example), sysops should be able to edit protected pages. What if there was an edit war on the Patriot Act (which has happened before), and during its protection, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Can we not edit it to show that? ugen64 02:25, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Automatic page protection

On Meta:Edit wars, I suggested a software feature that would automatically protect any page that has been reverted to the same version three times. Such automatic page protection would be subject to the intervention of any sysop and would automatically time out in 48 hours. As far as I can tell, automatic page protection would have no real impact on the current page protection policy. -- NetEsq 22:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Perhaps it should be discussed at m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion. Angela. 05:28, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Protecting pages

In addition, admins should try to avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless of course, one version is trolling or vandalism in which case you don't want to protect that version. However, it is best to let someone else do the reversion to maintain some distance.

now. This policy is still there. So, what happen to an admin if he does favor one page over another ? What if one of the user scream for sysop abuse ? And what of a sysop protecting a page, while a request for mediation is under way ? How will it perceive if the version favored is from the one requesting mediation ? Isn't that gonna be seen as a sign of non-neutrality from a mediator ? fr0069 20:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No matter what you do people will complain that you protected The Wrong Version. There's not a lot you can do. If you try to revert to stable version, someone will say that wasn't the stable version. If you protect a random version, you'll be accused of selecting that one on purpose. I don't know what the solution is. Angela. 06:57, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

You just grow a backbone and let people complain, knowing that you did the right thing. Anthony DiPierro 06:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requests regarding protected pages

Currently, the policy states:

The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.

In my opinion, this is very bad policy. Yes, a good case can be made that a party to the dispute that resulted in the page being protected should not make such a request, but if it is indeed the case that the sysop who protected the page did so without regard to the merits, then it may well happen that the protected version is deeply flawed (e.g. the object of "subvandalism"). Think about it: a subvandal can mess around with a page, and 50% of the time, gets the page frozen at the subvandalized version! Thus I would propose that the wording be revised accordingly. Peak 06:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Sysops should not be the ones to decide which version is the "right" one. If it's an obvious case of vandalism, the user can be banned. Angela. 22:00, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Angela:] It's all very well to say "should", but what if a sysop makes a mistake, or abuses his or her privileges? According to the stated policy, it is not even permissible to make a request that the mistake (or abuse) be undone! Peak 05:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If a page has to be protected, it should be on a stable pre-edit war version. Otherwise the side whose version is protected will be satisfied and not interested in discussion. --Wik 22:03, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Often, though not always, a stable pre-edit war version is one that one party is satisfied with. Martin 22:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's also usually the better version. Edit wars happen more often when someone tries to introduce some POV to an established NPOV article than the opposite (i.e. when someone tries to correct a long-standing POV). --Wik 22:24, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is less than an "obvious case of vandalism." It seems the threshold for obvious vandalism is extremely high. I agree with wik completely on this one. Anthony DiPierro

One side is always going to say you protected The Wrong Version. Having a policy which makes it clear that protection does not imply support for that version makes things a lot easier than having to defend why you protected a particular version. It is often not clear when a dispute started. Some people claim something is a stable version, but then the other side will say it wasn't and it had only stayed that way for some time because they didn't notice it or whatever. I don't want to get into those sorts of disputes. That's not what protecting pages is about. Angela. 03:06, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Angela:] You seem stuck on the idea that every protected page has been protected in accordance with Wikipedia policy. (What if the protector abused sysop powers to protect his or her own preferred version? What if a page was vandalized in a clever way, such that everyone, including the protector, agrees that the wrong version was protected?) Also, as pointed out by Ed Poor, every involved in an edit war might still be in agreement that something needs to be changed.Peak 03:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What if someone did abuse their powers? That should be dealt with by the arbitration committee, not by changing the protection policy. I don't see how that is relevant. The only point to protecting a page is to stop an edit war. It is not about the person protecting choosing the best version. Angela. 04:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Angela:] There are several reasons why the current censorship policy is very bad:

1. If there has been sysop abuse of power, then the current policy serves to censor both the aggrieved party and those who may not have been involved in the edit conflict at all, while rewarding the guilty with the delay required by arbitration.
2. If the sysop made an honest mistake, or if there are changes that everyone involved in the editing of the article agrees to, then the current policy (interpreted literally) is simply assinine.
3. The current policy supports, and perhaps encourages, subvandalism. I have seen this in action. Let's call the subvandal in question L. L messes around with several articles - let's say three. All three end up being protected, but in an attempt to be "neutral", an innocent sysop decides to freeze one page at L's latest edit.
4. The current policy also encourages vandalism. Sometimes pages have to be protected for weeks on end, and during this time, they are frozen, thus achieving the vandal's aim. (See [[1]].)

I refuse to pick a version to protect on. If that's going to be the policy, I won't protect any more pages. It is not worth the hassle of defending the version chosen and the attacks I will receive for making that decision. Vandalism and potential sysop abuse need to be dealt with in other ways, not by making this protection policy completely unworkable. Angela. 06:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a threat? The world can do without you protecting pages, Angela. Wikipedia will survive. Anthony DiPierro 06:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I blocked Wik for his reversion of your edits, Anthony, but Wikipedia can do without you much better than they can do without Angela doing the great work she does. RickK 06:23, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What does this have to do with me? Absolutely nothing. Anthony DiPierro 06:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Angela:] - Whenever a sysop protects a page, he or she is making a choice about which version to protect. I can't really believe that your decision procedure is rigidly: "freeze it the way it is"; perhaps it's something like, "freeze it to the most recent unvandalized version." If so, then why not so indicate on the Talk page, with an indication that you personally will not further edit the page under any circumstance? That way, your position is clear, other sysops can take it from there if they wish, everyone wins, and there is no censorship.Peak 06:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What? 1) Protecting pages is not about "censorship". 2) I am not threatening anyone. 3) I think that a proposal which allows sysops to edit a protected page and then protect their favoured version is a very bad idea. Angela. 07:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak to Angela:] - Responding to your three points:

1. The censorship is right there in the policy: "requests should therefore not be made ...". There is actually double censorship here: firstly of requests; and secondly of changes that have no relationship to the dispute. Since pages are sometimes being protected for very long periods of time, many users would effectively be censored.
2. Someone else wrote about your "threat" to cease protecting pages. I then explained that if sysops who refuse to entertain requests to make changes to a page they protected make their position clear, then there would be no need for the blanket rule that is at issue here.
3. No-one is proposing that sysops should protect their personal favorites. The proposal is that there be no censorship of requests; and that, under certain very restricted circumstances (e.g. complete absence of disagreement about the proposed change), edits be permitted.

Incidentally, regarding your previous point about "unworkable" rules, please note that the stated policy is currently being ignored (at least occasionally), so the empirical evidence suggests that it is the stated policy which is unworkable, rather than the other way around. Peak 07:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for unrestricted free speech. If you want unrestricted free speech, get a geocities website. If you do not want unrestricted free speech, don't complain about censorship.

I fully support Angela's position on this matter, and see no need for further discussion. Martin 19:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] In attempting to determine how many articles are currently protected and for how long, I found that the "What links here" feature is not always working. For example, the DNA page has a wikilink to Wikipedia:This_page_is_protected but a "What links here" query from the latter page does not show DNA. Does anyone have any explanation for this? How can one best determine which articles are currently protected and for how long? Thanks. Peak 06:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It probably has to do with the links table not being updated yet. It happens from time to time. Protection log is probably the best place for the info. Dori | Talk 06:11, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Temporary protection solves nothing

Is there any evidence that this policy actually accomplishes anything? Anthony DiPierro

An interesting question. Fortunately, all the resources you need to answer it are available: a list of pages that have undergone protection (at Wikipedia:protection log) and the talk pages of protected pages. Have a go. -- Cyan 19:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The purpose is to allow wikipedians obsessed with certain pages to cool down and think of other things. Muriel 19:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have my answer, I think the answer is no. In theory people page protection is supposed to calm people down, but I haven't seen any evidence that actually happens. Certainly in some cases, people aren't going to calm down. Some edit wars have gone on for months, through multiple protections of the page, and still continue. Maybe the answer is yes, it works sometimes, but it seems there needs to be an alternate solution for those other times. [this comment is a work in progress and will be edited] Anthony DiPierro 19:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to offend anyone, but it seems temporary protections are the stupidest Wikipedia policy. Instead of just hitting the pause button, maybe admins should spend their time actually resolving the dispute! Alternately, the protection could just be enforced against certain users, as bans are. --AaronSw 21:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

per-user article protections are a feature request, but the devs have many such, sadly.

Of course, admins have no extra powers or responsibilities with respect to actually resolving the dispute - anyone can do this, and fortunately many people, both admins and non-admins do. Martin 21:13, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This should be a simple proposal: a "do you really want to protect this page" sort of notice, like the one we have for Deletion. I recently hit protect instead of discuss (I think that was after I switched back to normal skin), and it could get annoying, especially if someone (this could happen) unprotected the Main Page without realizing it... just a thought. ugen64 02:22, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

This idea has been submitted to Sourceforge in the past. Angela. 14:12, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

On Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version I propose modifying the protection policy to allow gentle discouragement of revert wars. Comments? Martin 23:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Given general support, and supportive comments by Jimbo, I have edited the page appropriately. This does not prevent us additionally choosing to enforce temp-bans, or choosing some other method, but it's one more arrow to our bows. Martin 17:06, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)