Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 17

Anybody know where to get a tally of the types of each protection? Special:Protectedpages only gives an incremental list of titles, but no total count. I suspect, that if ECP has not yet overtaken full, then it soon will, and we should probably edit the lead accordingly. TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, a Wikipedia guideline for the protection of pages found here at WP:PPG has been proposed. Lectonar (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from archive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never been keen on the pink padlock. Since 2015 the red padlock has been unused and I suggest to use this color for template protection. Any opinions please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion on this please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't gotten any opposes by now just change it. Be bold and all that. I doubt many people would even notice. --Majora (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think we should keep the padlock colours consistent over time. I think in particular that changing to a padlock formerly used to a different purpose could be confusing, especially for returning users, and since the red padlock disappeared relatively quietly. I suspect many people would look at it and think "why did all these template protected templates suddenly get permanently protected!?" Or maybe that's just me. BethNaught (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

How prevalent were the red locks to begin with? The only place I could ever remember seeing one was at WP:CASC (which is still there by the way). If they were only used in a few places I doubt anyone would really mind all that much. And if they do the locks are all link enabled (or at least should be). So what it means is only a click away. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught and Majora: I've just just retrieved this from the archive because I forgot about it. Mt main rationale for changing is that we would never have chosen pink if red had been available. (I think the red padlock has been gone long enough that I don't think anyone will be thinking it means permanent protection.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Majora: I have changed the color of the padlock on WP:CASC to gold! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I still don't agree, for the same reasons, and also because this doesn't solve an actual problem as far as I can see. We would never have chosen pink if red had been available—well, we did choose pink and that's how it's been for a long time. Also, {{citation needed}}. Moreover I think the red is unnecessarily scary and forbidding looking—even the full protection padlock isn't like that. BethNaught (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, the original padlock discussion was WT:Requests for comment/Template editor user right/Archive 2#Choose_a_padlock, and available padlocks are listed at WP:PADLOCKS. Note also that the shortcut WP:REDLOCK has been used in discussions to refer to indefinite protection – if red is changed to refer to template protection, those archived discussions will have their meaning changed, or will need to be edited to retain their intended meaning (they aren't that many, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:REDLOCK, but it is still a consideration). - Evad37 [talk] 10:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thanks to everyone (MSGJ, Majora, BethNaught, and Evad37) for all the great work! I have a few opinions about this topic:

I agree with BethNaught that using the red lock could potentionally lead to confusion with the old usage of the red lock. However, I am not adverse to the color changing to something that has never been used before.

If a new color is being considered, I personally like this one:

Also, of the colors which would not have to usurp a shortcut, this one placed highest at WT:Requests for comment/Template editor user right/Archive 2#Choose_a_padlock (thanks, Evad37, for getting this link!).

And, unrelated to the main discussion (though related to an earlier comment in this discussion by MSGJ): MSGJ, I think that using a gold lock for cascade protection might confict with full protection, since WP:GOLDLOCK goes to full protection, but would equally apply to anything else with a gold lock. I think another color, which does not share a shortcut with anything, would be beter. For example, this one could be used:

Thanks again to everyone for all the great work!Noah Kastin (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for the new players, is there a reason why articles put under indefinite protection don't get the padlock added to them automatically? Is there anything wrong with going through and adding the templates onto articles with indefinite protection? Then same again with those under temporary?

203.6.77.2 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you give us examples? Adding a padlock icon is a manual edit (done by default if the admin is using Twinkle). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much every one of El_C's. So there wouldn't be any harm in adding the template to pages that have been placed under a given level of protection? Just find it odd it's a fairly consistant thing. 203.6.77.2 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

El C? What's up with your tagging? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What, is it sucking? El_C 16:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I think the IP is asking is there any reason why you're not adding the padlock icon to articles you're protecting. Also, IP, displaying the appropriate padlock icon automatically seems like a good idea to me. Anyone know why it isn't done? It would require a purge of the page when protection is added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I just forget. Automatically would be a good idea. El_C 17:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, there is a phab task for that, I believe. --Izno (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When a revision is pending, it displays a mark [pending revisions], and on top of the page it has a blue box telling that something is pending. But nowhere it seems to link to policy/explanation what this actually means. Could we add a link to for example this policy section or elsewhere with a good explanation? It took me several searches to find this page... Thanks! effeietsanders 16:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. if this is the wrong place to ask, feel free to move/copy it.

Odd, it should link to WP:PC. El_C 16:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: As in, in an ideal world it should, or it already does so for you? effeietsanders 21:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. No, I see what you see. El_C 22:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Right now, a substantial amount of files are edit protected. With some exceptions, almost all of these seem to only merit upload+move protection as they are highly visible files in one way or another, and no edit protection.

I was thinking of performing a mass de-protection, with each file (save for those whose filepage should not be edited) being reduced to move+upload prot and I'd like to ask if there is any support/concern/opposition.

(There are some files which are cascade protected and can't be edited even when deprotected. There is a request in Phabricator to change cascade protection so that it only applies to filemoves and uploads, however, so the local edit protections could be lifted there as well)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but before you do anything like this better ask somewhere really, really visible, maybe AN and/or VP. EEng 14:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Added notifications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the size of this expected job - may possibly be suitable for a bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: ? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: 89 files max, some of which are poised for deletion. I think that can be done manually quicker than by bot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to put in an objection if (relatively large if) this request is doing what I think it is doing. I took a look in the category linked above, and I found images that would cause problematic amounts of disruption if they were to be vandalized. These files often have thousands or tens of thousands of transclusions, and are used in high risk templates. Therefore, I have to object to any kind of mass unprotection, and ask that any unprotections of images follow roughly the consensus for high risk templates, due to the risk of widespread vandalism occurring from a single edit. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems some of the files (ex,File:Tango jpgordon.jpg) are protected for seemingly no good reason other they were uploaded by someone who could protect them willy-nilly. This proposal can not blanket the entire category, ex, File:Ambox notice.png and the like should not be unprotected. (IMHO) - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog and Mlpearc: The idea I had is to lift edit protections while leaving upload and move protections in place, sorry if I was not clear about this. Changes to the filepage don't propagate to other articles so the filepage unlike the file itself is not a high risk page. Incidentally, File:Tango jpgordon.jpg appears to be @Jpgordon:'s personal file so I am not touching it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ok, a few more questions/points:

1) Is there a way to break the attribution required by our license on any of these files? My guess is no, because the history is not alterable, but a single edit resulting in hundreds of thousand or millions of license violations is unacceptable even if reverted quickly (If such a breaking is possible, there is no need to elaborate on how (WP:BEANS)).

2) How many fully protected edit requests have been approved to tweak the documentation on a fully protected file in recent memory? If the answer is none, or only a handful, is this a solution looking for a problem?

3) Some of these files are fully protected in multiple ways (on the file page itself, and by putting them into a cascade-protected lockbox) so that a single admin oops is unlikely to expose the project to an attack. I'd like to see this redundant protection remain on files with hundreds of thousands to millions of transclusions. Changing the protection to move/upload from full doesn't affect this, but should be kept in mind. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have a problem with reducing the protection on these pages directly. Just wanted to note that a lot of these images are probably cascade protected elsewhere anyways. Quite a few of them are listed in various places like WP:CASC. So reducing the protection on those pages directly won't actually do anything. --Majora (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: There is a task somewhere in Phabricator that asks that cascade protection of files apply solely a move+upload protection; if it gets implemented the removal of edit protection would do something. @Tazerdadog: In order #1: The upload history is technically displayed on the filepage and can't be altered except by revision deletion, if that is the attribution you mean. #2: Such requests are sporadic, say one per month or less. That does not count any edits that weren't done because the user who wanted to edit did not find their way to the talk page. #3: I am only proposing to remove the per-file protection (with the caveat about that Phab task); adding or removing files to cascade protection is something that I don't plan to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Would that Phab task change them all at the coding level? By that I mean, would you then have to go and change the protection scheme on the various CASC pages (and just from a cursory overview there are a lot of them)? Or would it be a "if title is in namespace 6 only apply move+upload protection regardless of what the CASC page is set at"? --Majora (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ok, it sounds like this is unlikely to be a problem, although I'm not sure it is strictly necessary. I will encourage caution, as mistakes in this area can become bad quickly, but I do not see any major roadblocks for this change. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: phab:T24521 if it gets implemented will exempt the filepage from cascading protection, but protect the actual file still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So it would work like option b (move+upload only regardless of CASC settings). That works with me. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the reduction of individual page settings. Just thought I would point out the CASC issue. Seeing as there is already a task to address that I don't have any problems. --Majora (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the idea, but suggest the following:

• Identify the X number (10? 100? 1000?) of most-transcluded files and deal with them separately after the rest are done.
• Do 100 at first, 1,000 three days later, 10,000 three days later, and so forth.

This should limit the disruption if something goes Very Very Wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, Could you upload a random file, and apply move+upload protection so that we mere mortals non admins can play with it and get a sense of how it works? Tazerdadog (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are several file sandboxes available that could be used for testing, see File:Image page sandbox.png - Evad37 [talk] 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Two days protection has been applied on that page so that non-admins can see its effects. I assume that it isn't a problem on a test page. As for the sensitive files, I'd imagine each on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items#Cascade protected images would qualify. The list of files I am considering ain't large BTW: 1 and 2 are all the edit protected files we currently have, not all of which are candidates for unprotection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a mass de-protection: mindlessly reducing protection on a big group of pages is virtually always a bad idea. Of course, if you're talking about spending a large amount of time to review them individually, that's fine; you wouldn't have become an admin if people didn't think you had good judgement. In most cases, I agree that move+upload protection is sufficient, including with some protected-because-highly-visible images — many of those are non-clickable in most of their appearances (e.g. the images used in {{PD-self}}, {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, etc.), and even if they are clickable, these high-use images generally won't get many clicks, i.e. people won't be bothered by vandalism to them, even in the unlikely event that it occurs. So in other words, I think you should probably unprotect most of these pages, but please consider each one individually. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

From reply above - this is only about 89 pages - so I'm fine with deferring to admin discretion on these - if it is used somewhere important keep the move+upload protection; and I wouldn't worry about if there is incidental cascade protection as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I'm still opposed to mass-unprotecting them, but this small number means that it should be easier to review them individually. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally supportive of this, provided that someone has verified that each file in question can be safely unprotected. -FASTILY 02:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Seems like after almost one week there is support for this proposal, with the condition that each file be reviewed before unprotecting so that we can be sure that it is in fact safe to unprotect. I may take action tomorrow unless people raise further issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Alrights, it's done. I've left the following pages with edit protection pending some feedback:

• File:Tango jpgordon.jpg: Seems like Jpgordon's personal file.
• File:Apache Wickiup, Edward Curtis, 1903.jpg: Protected by @B: ostensibly to force folks to edit on Commons rather than locally. Simple semi protection would suffice, if any protection is needed, probably.
• File:WPAbortion-logo.svg: Protected by @SarekOfVulcan: due to an upload and edit war, apparently. Not sure what kind, if any, of protection is needed now.
• File:Wiktionary-logo-51px.gif: At FFD.
• File:Red Wine Glass.jpg and redirect: Protected by @Nyttend:, apparently due to bot tagging. Still an issue?
• File:Pacs2.jpg and File:Pacs1.jpg: Protected by @RHaworth: apparently over a dispute on a NowCommons tag.
• File:Ruud Koot.jpg: Seems like a personal file of @Ruud Koot:
• File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png: Asked on talk page of protecting admin, no comment so far.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't remember anything with this image, especially since it's never gotten a bot edit. Surely the issue's resolved, so I've unprotected it. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• I checked the deleted revs of WPAbortion-logo, and it was changed to "Murder" a bunch of times before protection. I suspect it wouldn't take long for that to be repeated, and given the number of transclusions... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this highest protection level before full exists exclusively for templates, as MSGJ argues? Do we, indeed, go straight to full protection once there's disruption from extended confirmed access accounts—or do we also have this middle road, between full and ce, to be used for the protection of articles, too? El_C 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't use TPE for articles. Even the most experienced, trusted editors usually don't have the TE right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: "There are currently 151 template editors" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm...I saw that you used that yesterday, and I asked myself the same question. Just by the wording I would say it is indeed only to be used for templates. Being pragmatic I thought you did well, so I'd say with IAR and stretching a bit in every direction, you have that leeway. But what I ask myself now: is there really a de facto difference between template- and full protection at all? Fwiiw, I was a big friend of pending changes level two, which would have filled the gap between full and the rest, and served well in this instance,but alas...it is not to be used. Lectonar (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there's only 150 editors with that access, then it's not that practical to have at all, for anything. El_C 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: No, it definitely is. You only want editors who know what they're doing mucking around with highly transcluded templates, especially complex ones. Asking admins to do changes is pretty futile as most of us don't understand the code involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair point. El_C 18:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

But applying it to articles, does in theory, give the 1,200 admins + 150 te editors more free reign to edit the given article freely; and with admins, that's a more sizeable body of editors. But, indeed, I'm surprised there's nothing above ce ec but below te. El_C 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ec? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ec, sorry about that. El_C 18:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

But you are giving the advantage to editors not specifically cleared by the community to actually receive that advantage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just looking for something that would permit established editors to use, but curtail disruptive ec accounts. El_C 18:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If extended confirmed accounts are being disruptive then either block them or as Neil says, yank the user right. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We have all these user-rights, but none are really reflected in the protection options. El_C 18:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Well, warning that you'll remove their extended-confirmed status should make disruptive editors smarten up, right-quick. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that did not occur to me. I don't think I've modified user-rights more than once or twice. El_C 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has major broad areas of poor-quality Wikipedia pages, particularly about high-conflict subjects - due to access & sabotage by vested interests and their surrogates.

Classic examples include any page about Russia, its politics, or about areas and issues in which it has been involved in conflict or sabotage, including Ukraine, Syria, etc. The Russian government appears (from the edits) to have a very active army of its own Wikipedia editors who track all activity on key Russia-related Wikipedia articles, and immediately undermine any other editors' edits that reflect unfavorably upon the Russian government or its clients, or their actions.

(On many such Russia-related Wikipedia articles, the honest editors, who try to undo vandalism, unsubstatiated claims and deliberate falsehoods, can't seem to keep up with the corrupting edits of the dishonest editors, who appear to be generating edits at an occupational pace, hence the appearance of an organized team of career Wikipedia saboteurs).

Likewise, saboteurs have repeatedly attacked various articles about the Rohingya people -- "the world's most persecuted people" (according to the The Economist and others) -- especialy where it is noted that the government of the Rohingya's home-nation Myanmar, is alleged (by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the U.S. State Department) to have committed, or aided and abetted, atrocities againt the Rohingya.

In such places -- and elsewhere in many of the fifty-some Wikipedia articles about the Rohingya and related issues -- the Myanmar government (or military), and their surrogates, have also apparently repeatedly attempted to alter (or delete) the record of their atrocities from the Wikipedia articles on the Rohingya -- while attempting to insert implausible and/or unsubstantiated claims against the Rohingya, or claims attributed to sources apparently affiliated with groups hostile to the Rohingya

(Fortunately, Wikipedia editors have kept up with most of the vandalism and corrupting edits, on most of the Rohingya-related pages, though not always. Additionally, some articles on the Rohingya issues seem to have been created by the saboteurs, to skew the discussion.)

On a more complex level, too, many issues have become so partisan that partisans on one side or another of the issue -- often from the public at large, indigenous to the nation or topic at issue -- seem to insert false statements, and otherwise tamper with the articles, out of bias, spite or deliberate cover-up... usually with little or no credible (nor even plausible) supporting references.

This has happened repeatedly with the Rohingya issue, it seems, but also with countless other issues, in Wikipedia articles, from Domestic violence in India, to governmental corruption prosecutions in Brazil, to American domestic politics.

On highly-charged, very controversial issues involving vast numbers of people -- or particularly targeted and vulnerable populations -- with fierce opposition to the truth from powerful entities, or from broad segments of society -- there ought to be some more effective and sober mechanism, in Wikipedia, to prevent the vandalism and corruption of Wikipedia articles, by these powerful and aggressive opponents of the truth.

And the current "Protection policy" is clearly inadequate to defend against the attacks.

In an era of professionally-produced "fake news" -- dissemenated by organized government-backed (or corporate-funded, or organization-funded, or billionaire-funded) groups of professional online saboteurs -- it is no longer sound policy for Wikipedia to leave articles on such sensitive, important and volatile issues, open to unregulated editing by unknown forces, many of whom are apparently professional saboteurs.

The credibility of Wikipedia, itself, is at stake.

~ Penlite (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Penlite: You have suggested no specific policy changes here. If you're arguing for mandatory 30/500 protection for articles in this area then that needs to be approved by the wider community or Arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am too new to editing Wikipedia, too unfamiliar with its protocols and bureaucracy / social structure / culture, to be able to make knowledgeable specific recommendations. But I do have sufficient background in international affairs, political science, public affairs and journalism to recognize a pattern of interference with honest reporting and publication.

I'm just the guy who sees the fire -- not the fireman who knows how to put it out. But that's no reason to keep quiet. I've simply sounded an alarm. Those who dominate -- and, essentially, govern -- Wikipedia (such as administrators and long-time editors), are the ones who need to envision, develop and implement the solution.

I realize this is a devastating, fundamental issue, that goes to the core of what Wikipedia has been, from its origins, and what its participants and consumers have idealized in fantasy, and largely in reality.

But times change, circumstances change, and institutions that do not evolve with the times, eventually perish as a result.

Wikipedia is under rapidly escalating attack from professional saboteurs. Act, or don't: it's not really my decision, it's really yours.

~ Penlite (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that the "credibility of Wikipedia, itself, is at stake" seems a bit alarmist, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with egg on our faces a few years down the road. I have been vaguely aware of some disturbing patterns in Russia-related content over the past year or so. If anyone has the time and the patience, what really needs to happen is a systematic study to determine if there's a problem and, if so, what its scope is, whether it is indeed overwhelming the safeguards currently in place, and so on. But that should involve a centralized discussion somewhere else (perhaps at the village pump, not here. If you're right, the scope of the problem goes well beyond protection policy and will require a coordinated effort to solve. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: You say:

"Your assertion that the "credibility of Wikipedia, itself, is at stake" seems a bit alarmist, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with egg on our faces a few years down the road."

It's a bit late for that. The credibility of Wikipedia is not that high in most circles, and its crediblity has been the butt of countless sarcastic remarks, wisecracks and late-night comics' jokes.

While I think Wikipedia has merit (or I wouldn't bother with it), Wikipedia's credibility has been in danger for years, now. Recall the flap when ABC News publicly instructed their staff not to use it as a reference? That was years ago.

For more examples, see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_Credibility_Reputation_-_Major_Media_Stories

Wikipedia has "egg on its face" every time some visitor reads an obviously corrupted article. And the public is most likely to go to Wikipedia, in their most serious moods, to read articles on the most intensely important issues (also the most contentious issues, most subject to sabotage), making it more likely than not that they will see corrupted and vandalized articles.

And the ease with which the bad mixes with the good, in Wikipedia, gives the visitor no realistic way to sort the truth from the fiction, making Wikipedia articles largely pointless (or even detrimental) to read -- especially on the most important (and thus, most contentious) subjects.

While plenty of Wikipedia visitors are naive or ignorant enough to fail to notice the sabotage and falsehoods, many are not... and word spreads.

In my own circles, I've found it almost impossible to get most people to take Wikipedia seriously, and I no longer admit, out loud, to editing Wikipedia articles, for fear of damaging my own credibility by association.

And my experience is not unique.

The egg is already there, and getting rotten and smelly with age. Time to wipe it off.

~ Penlite (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: You say:

"If anyone has the time and the patience, what really needs to happen is a systematic study to determine if there's a problem and, if so, what its scope is, whether it is indeed overwhelming the safeguards currently in place, and so on.

"But that should involve a centralized discussion somewhere else (perhaps at the village pump, not here.

"If you're right, the scope of the problem goes well beyond protection policy and will require a coordinated effort to solve."

I completely agree. I wish I had the freedom to spend the time to do the work, and had the full range of expertise in Wikipedia, journalism, forensics, cybersecurity, cybertechnology, and interactive user-interface design, to fully address the challenge. I salute those who do, and urge their engagement on this issue.

The future of Wikipedia, itself, is at stake.

Very respectfully,

~ Penlite (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My experience is different than yours: I consider Wikipedia much more reliable than it once was, and I rarely receive a negative response after telling someone I edit here. When I referred to egg on the face, I meant specifically with regard to certain topics, particularly those relating to Russia. This is a real concern that deserves attention. In more general terms, we still have a long way to go but we are doing so much better than we were a few years ago. Vandalism will always be with us to some degree, but it's way less of a problem than it used to be. Certain other kinds of detrimental edits, especially subtle ones, are harder to detect, so they pose more of a challenge. When I used the word "alarmist", I was referring to sweeping statements of which you've now made more (e.g., "[t]he future of Wikipedia, itself, is at stake"). You have no idea how many times someone has said that over the past decade or so. The world's going to hell in a handbasket, but somehow we muster on. Wikipedia might soon "fade as a tawdry farce"? Give me a break. Maybe the concept of encyclopedia will become obsolete, but when it come to encyclopedias, right now we're very close to the only game in town. We have our problems, sure, but what's the alternative? There aren't exactly competitors waiting in the wings. In any event, this discussion is getting way outside the scope of this page, which is supposed to be about protection policy. If you're serious about sounding an alarm about certain articles or subjects, I suggest again the Village Pump. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"unregulated editing by unknown forces" is what wrote Wikipedia in the first place. I've seen extended-confirmed vandals, admins with paid agendas, and unregistered users fixing Rohingya articles. The relationship to the protection policy is not so straightforward. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Wikipedia is not now (was it ever?) the pure-and-honorable, egalitarian and noble venture that was envisioned at its outset. While most Wikipedians may be good, honorable people (and probably nearly all of the original Wikipedians were) -- time, growth, popularity and growing influence of Wikipedia have drawn the attention of less-honest and less-honorable people... and countless Wikipedia articles, growing in scale daily, are clearly showing the consequences.

As I noted above, times change, and institutions must change with the times to survive. Wikipedia was borne of that reality, and must live in accordance with it, now, or soon fade as a tawdry farce. Which will it be?

~ Penlite (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Wait! This page is not or discussing edits to protected pages, or for requesting protection or unprotection of a page." I humbly suggest "for" in place of the first "or." — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2Reflect (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed in the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. - Evad37 [talk] 04:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A script should be created to prevent the unprotection or edits by administrators. It is illogical to give administrators access to office protection. UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 18:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: I can (vaguely) think of one instance where an office protection was bypassed by an admin. So what's the justification for allocating resources to this task? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There should be a new level of protection called link protection. It only allows the insertion of internal links and external links can be added by administrators only. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 01:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? What problem is this trying to solve that simple revision or any of the other protection levels won't solve? Also, mediawiki isn't set up like that. You might be able to do this with an edit filter but to waste server resources on this seems a little much. Trying to find a problem for this solution but not finding one. Perhaps you should post these ideas at the the idea lab instead of here. This page is more for discussion of edits to WP:Protection policy. Not for proposing completely new things. --Majora (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Please listen to Majora's polite suggestion. "Trying to find a solution to a problem which doesn't exist (or isn't explained very well)" fits very well here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, UpsandDowns1234! Thanks for the suggestion! There's actually already at least one bot for removing inappropriate links (which I discovered when it reverted one of my edits because it added an inappropriate link). This may make the need for an additional level of protection unnecessary. Regardless, thanks for the suggestion! Noah Kastin (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: @NeilN: @Noah Kastin: This is to prevent external link spamming. If there is a bot that reverts external link spamming, then articles prone to spam can be link protected. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 02:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, UpsandDowns1234! I'm somewhat confused by your reply. If you can clarify it, that would help a lot! Thanks again for replying! Noah Kastin (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is and what isn't spam is not black and white. It is subjective. The bot reverts questionable additions. The Mediawiki:Spamblacklist prevents known bad links entirely. --Majora (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

But a bot and edit filter already take care of the worst spamlinks. And since spamlinks are typically added by unconfirmed editors, semi-protection would suffice for articles that get regularly hit. As an aside, I think I can count the number of articles I've protected solely because of spam on one hand (at the very most). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally, I am on the side of avoiding instruction creep, but when I see an admin who appears to be missing the point of a policy, I have to wonder whether a slight wording change will avoid problems in the future. Note that I am not asking that the wording be changed, but rather trying to open a discussion about whether it should be changed.

The policy section is this:

"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists" --WP:PREFER

The conversation where I believe that an admin missed the point of the policy is here:[4][5][6]

In my opinion, the problem is the "administrators normally protect the current version" language. It seems to me that the policy should instead state or at least imply that administrators should use their discretion to decide whether to protect the last edit made or to restore a previous, stable version. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

How about "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists"? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps we should include something that in that case the protecting admin is not to be considered involved (I think the protection of the current version is recommended exactly to avoid being accused of being involved). Often edit-warring isn't that clear cut to begin with. Lectonar (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't work. If an admin who is not previously involved in a content dispute but secretly favors version B over version A sees an edit war, all he has to do is wait until one of the edit warriors reverts to version B and instantly protect the page. We need to trust the administrators to recognize when they have strong feelings about the content of an article and let some other admin who doesn't have a bias (conscious or unconscious) deal with the edit warring behavior without using the tools to issue a supervote on article content. In my opinion, very close to 100% of admins do the right thing in such cases, and I don't see even a tiny hint to the contrary in the underlying case that I am studiously ignoring as I discuss policy wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

See: WP:The wrong version. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• The current wording, as I noted in the prior discussion which Guy Macon actually cites above in his diff, already states this. As I told Guy Macon the first time, the current text already says " administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists" I don't know why he believes that the current policy does not allow for admin discretion, since 1) it clearly states that it does and 2) in the very same post where I first replied to him, I plainly explained to him that it does. I'm not sure what else to do here, since both this page, and my explanation thereof, could not be any clearer regarding this. --Jayron32 17:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• But you also told me "clearly states best practice is usually to protect the current version",[7] which is dead wrong. Neither protecting the current version or protecting a stable, status quo version is "best practice". Either is allowed, at the admin's discretion. The policy does not say anything about "best practice". I assume that the reason you wrote that particular wrong-headed opinion (and your snarky comment about my interpretation of the meaning of "status quo") was because of the word "normally". I assume that if that word led you astray it might lead other admins astray, and thus we are having this discussion about clarifying the policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think there might be a disagreement in what constitutes a "clear" version. In the discussion which gave rise to this thread, the definition of vandalism and/or edit-warring was contentious. Lectonar (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  The meaning of vandalism or edit warring is only confusing to people who are willfully obtuse and stand to gain by claiming to not know what those terms mean; usually to win an argument by claiming that their good-faithed opponent is vandalizing when in fact they merely hold a different point of view. Vandalism is pretty easy to understand, as is edit warring. --Jayron32 18:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  Just for the record, I had nothing to do with the underlying dispute, and my only comments at Village pump (policy) were about what I believe to by an admin who, in good faith, came to a wrong conclusion about this policy (specifically, imagining that one of the two options for admins is "best practice"). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps clarity would follow from resequencing the text, and making clear that if an editor / group of editors have an issue with the version protected, the option to request returning to a point before the dispute is available:

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Subject to this proviso, administrators exercise their discretion (without becoming involved in the content dispute) in deciding whether to protect the most current version of an article, or to revert to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version of the page before applying protection.

Editors convinced that the protected version contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider advice about the wrong version and recognise that requests that are continuations of an edit war and may warrant blocks. how an independent editor might view the suggestion and recognise that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked.

Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Edited following comments from Guy Macon below, striking reference to the wrong version and altering the last sentence. EdChem (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I really like the basic concept. Perhaps we could work in something to the effect that such a request is best made by someone who wasn't part of the edit warring?

I have a problem with any policy linking to The Wrong Version, which is clearly labeled "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Edited above in light of this valid concern / observation. EdChem (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jayron, would the above change in wording suffice to convince you that this policy does not "clearly state [that] best practice is usually to protect the current version"?[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for the above wording by EdChem. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support EdChem version. Reference to "the Wrong Version" has always stuck in my craw. It's insulting and wrongheaded and is actually bad advice, which is why it passed off as the joke it is. We are serious people here and don't benefit by being laughed at. The "I don't care whose truck it is; Jimmy was holding it when I came in the room, so Jimmy gets to keep it, now stop squabbling, I'm busy" approach to parenting is stupid and lazy. It might well be Bobby's truck, and that matters. So let's not have that approach here. It doesn't strike me as how a good organization would be run. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new text at Wikipedia:Protection Policy#Content disputes

It is clear that my suggestions above has some support, but implementing the above text in the existing text would be awkward. So, I offer a suggestion for a complete redraft of the section, with a side-by-side comparison with the current version:

I recognise that I have made tweaks to the text proposed earlier, but I think they are not substantive. My proposed version integrates the material from the policy section not addressed earlier. EdChem (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC) PS: Inviting input from all those who have commented above: Guy Macon, zzuuzz, Lectonar, Blueboar, Jayron32, and Herostratus. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support for the proposed version by EdChem. The soft "wrong" redirect is gone, and the matter of staying uninvolved while reverting is so much clearer now. Thank you for the work on that; my hat is off to you, Sir. Lectonar (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Much clearer. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support , alt text for paragraph one suggested (but support the original as well @EdChem: what do you think? - reworded to make the lead focus of the paragraph to be about the protection policy not the blocking policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, your change goes back to the sequence in the current text. I understand your preference to mention the protection policy up front, rather than the blocking policy. My thinking was that the intro is about edit warring and that page protection comes in where a single block is not likely to address the problem, where there is not a clear-cut right / wrong in the dispute. So, the logic to me is from problem (edit warring) to solution in simple cases (response = block) to the more complex cases where this policy comes in. The current version reads to me like the default response is protection with blocks as an alternative in some cases, but I think the default is to block and only go to protection where the collateral damage of cutting off all editing is justified by the type of disruption involved and where a discussion to reach a consensus is needed to resolve a dispute involving multiple editors and / or complex issues where policy might support either version or where the application of policy is unclear, etc. Perhaps an alternative form of words is needed to better reflect my intent? EdChem (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  I pulled it out of the top, will leave here if anyone else wants to comment:

Under this policy, administrators are granted discretion to temporarily impose full protection to end an ongoing edit war; in this situation, talk page discussion of all proposed edits must reach consensus for an edit to be implemented. The blocking policy authorizes uninvolved administrators to use blocks to deal with isolated incidents of edit warring and persistent edit warring by particular users - allowing normal page editing by others.

My thoughts were that when a content dispute involving many editors on one article is occurring that blocking every one of the editors is generally not the best course of action. Maybe a more specific call out that the edit warring policy information should be referred to first? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that all options should be on the table, and that no policy should say that one is preferable over the others. True, many admins will protect the page rather than dealing with six or seven people edit warring simply because it is less work, but it is also perfectly OK for an admin to pick everyone who went past 3RR and give them a short block. Sometimes that's what is needed to convince editors that we are serious about our edit warring policy. But only sometimes. Again, we need to trust the admin to decide what will work best in each particular situation. -Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, however a multi-party content dispute may not hit "3RR" thresholds - but still leave the page unstable for readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

How about an alternative wording, such as:

Content disputes and edit warring may be addressed with blocks issued by uninvolved administrators while allowing normal page editing by other editors. This policy grants administrators the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to ending an ongoing edit war. This alternative approach may be better suited to multi-party disputes and contentious content as talk page consensus becomes a requirement for requested edit to be implemented.

Maybe the emphasis is better this way, Xaosflux and Guy Macon? I've tried to imply when each approach is typically best, but without mandating admin action or inappropriately restricting discretion. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That direction feels better, think the phrasing needs a little bit of clean up, but I'm going to have to revisit due to WP:EUI right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

All three suggested versions look fine to me. Alas, it appears that no change to the wording will suffice to correct the original misinterpretation of policy that led me to start this discussion[9][10], so the best I can hope for here is clearer wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seems clear enough. The old version wasn't a problem, but this one is fine too. --Jayron32 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • +1 Lectonar (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Update implemented with this edit EdChem (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

See:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protectionHere is what it says in the first sentence of this section:

            "Extended confirmed protection, also known as 30/500 protection, prevents edits from all IP editors and any registered user with less than 30 days' tenure or fewer than 500 edits. Pages with this level of protection can be edited only by editors with the extended confirmed user access level, granted automatically to editors with the requisite tenure and number of edits."

See:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extendedconfirmed

If they need "extended confirmed user access level", then they need 30 days and 500 edits.

Here is what I think it should say:

            "Extended confirmed protection, also known as 30/500 protection, requires editors of the page to have been editors for 30 days and have 500+ edits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.243.95 (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC) 

Either "and" or "or" is fine in the sentence in question. To put it this way: it "prevents edits from [...] any registered user with [...] fewer than 500 edits". Inverting the statement, as you have in your proposed reword, would require the "and". --Izno (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

See TYPO or incorrect "logic" or ... maybe [?] 2 "policy" pages really disagree? with each other ... ? for reference. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that the red padlock icon is free, I was thinking, perhaps the Office Actions padlock should be changed to red instead of black? Red seems like it would be a color that would indicate a more severe situation. What does anyone here think? ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks all this fussing about colors is a waste of time? Why not just have a generic padlock with a word or abbreviation below or across it, like SEMI or FULL or PEND etc.? EEng 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: It seems to me that it would be a waste of time creating new lock icons with labels when there are existing icons to use, but I also think there's no need (not broken) to switch office colors. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess. Just please no more of this switching desk chairs on the Titanic. EEng 02:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason Page Movers can't move pages under move protection? I understand that some pages like Facebook will highly likely never need to be moved, but for those being targetted by vandalism, it'd still be useful for us to be able to in the event a genuine reason / concensus is resolved in the meantime. — IVORK _Discuss 23:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Jaymi Martin (talk · contribs)

I just requested a speedy deletion for Luigi Grosu (Actor & Singer) , which was an oddly familiar article. The creator is clearly trying to work around previously salted article titles, and has been doing so for a few years now. At what point is this considered disruptive, and what steps should be taken? --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: without reading in to any of the history on this: if it is the same editor being disruptive, blocking / ANI sanctions. If it is frequent enough the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or an Edit filter could be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I pointed out to the admin that deleted the article that it was the ninth or so created by Jaymi Martin apparently to get around some of the salted articles. That was enough for a block and further article creation protections. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

For a semi-protected article, I put a {{pp-semi}} template on it. For an article full-protected due to a content dispute, I put a {{pp-dispute}} template on it.

I can't find a template to use for extended confirmed protection, although it seems the pp-semi template adapts to it somehow. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly added this to the salting policy. Its something that has become more common in AfDs where there is a concern that a redirect may simply be undone against consensus. I didn't see it listed on this page, and since it seems pretty non-controversial and is becoming more common, I thought it best to document. I'm of course open to any tweaks of wording, etc. or reversion if people think it shouldn't be there. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Tavix, I have a question about this revert of the content I added to put the practice of salting redirects here. I know it is not technically creation protection, but I don't really know where else it would go in the policy, and it is a common enough practice that it should be documented somewhere. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• You're a bit confused on the jargon. A redirect cannot be "salted", WP:SALT only applies to creation protection. The action you are describing is full protection. On to the substance, I disagree that it should be added. If there is further disruption to the redirect after the AfD, protection can be added in accordance with the guidance already in place. However, what you are describing seems to me to be pre-emptive protection, which would be in violation of guidenece already in place, eg: Applying page protection in a pre-emptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. I would encourage you not to apply protection unless it's needed due to disruption, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is done at AfDs enough as it is that it needs to be documented. I've never done it myself (that I can think of), but I have supported it. Regardless of whether or not it is in here, it will continue to happen, so documenting that it exists is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just because something has been done doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I can think of instances where fully protecting a redirect is beneficial to the project, but I can't think of any instances that would fall outside the current guidance. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes. It still should be documented as it is a practice that can be beneficial, and is done regularly enough at AfD that keeping it as IAR doesn't serve much point anymore. Nothing in the text I added contradicts the rest of the page, it just notes that with consensus at AfDs, a redirect may be salted/full protected just as a deleted article may through consensus in an AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is continued from WP:COIN (permlink). Regardless of article content, is creation of XYZ when there is a salted XYZ Corporation to be considered to fall under the procedures for "contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content"? In other words is this behavior a) never covered by protection policy b) covered by protection policy depending on content, creator or some other variable or c) always a recreation of the salted article? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The request for a Third Opinion is being deleted, because there has not been significant discussion (or any discussion) here, only a comment. A Third Opinion can be offered after two editors disagree respectfully. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

However, when a title has been create-protected, creating a page with a variant spelling in order to bypass the create-protection is clearly an attempt to bypass the create-protection, and is likely to result in the variant also being salted. In American football, if you attempt an end run, and get hit by the linebacker, what did you expect? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

My argument on COIN was that this isn't a violation of the create protection policy, but could be considered disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 (聖やや) 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)

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)

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:

• Draft:TestArticle
• Draft:TestDraft1
• Draft:Test Page Can Be Deleted
• Draft:Test Page Draft
• Draft:Teste123321
• Draft:Testing
• Draft:Testing test

-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)

help i need help thanks willow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narwhil (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Narwhil: Please see the information I added to your talk page. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add to University section:

• Brandman University, part of the Chapman University System^[1] – San Diego Campus