851:
articles, we not only lose the valuable contributions of some non-logged in users (and even though an edit may not stand today, it has built the foundation upon the article that is here today), but lose many potential contributors. In addition, we must also recognize that vandalism will be inevitable - at what price are we to limit progress in an attempt to stem vandalism? Finally, also consider the argument that we could theoretically fully protect the vast majority of articles, most of which are rarely edited, to stop vandalism. Of course it would be effective in stopping vandalism - the articles can no longer be edited except by admins! - but at what price? At ending the open model that served us so long and so well. Permanent semiprotect would upset that balance of openness and editing that we have come to establish. Thanks!
186:
when you click to edit the page) or a discrete notice, like a padlock image that sends you to the semi-protection policy page when you click on it. If the trial run is successful and the semi-protection usage is expanded, I would suggest not even using it on all guideline and official policy pages, only those that are regularly vandalized and/or those that can cause serious problems when they are vandalized. I don't think most of the guideline pages would qualify for the second one, but a few might. A few
Knowledge namespace pages that are not policies or guidelines might benefit from permanent semi-protection, too. Still, I think that it would be limited to a dozen or two pages. --
774:
paying for the rights of anonymous users to make just eight valid edits (against a background of 100 or so 'real' edits by named users). What of those eight? Well, six were VERY minor - to the point where, frankly I wouldn't have bothered. Only two added any significant material at all...and both of those changes were eventually overtaken by other edits and no longer contribute to the article as it is today. In all likelyhood, some of those anonymous edits were probably from named users who had simply switched computers and forgotten to log in or something - but that's just speculation.
1066:
Main Page, copyright pages etc). It applies also to templates. That a sort of quivering-in-fear-of-an-edit approach means we'd prefer to see no improvement to certain parts of particular pages does not result in an extension to everything that is not an article. I am also a little disappointed at the advocation of smoke and mirrors in what is supposed to be an open project. Those who are the target of the smoke and mirrors will quickly see through them; those that cannot see through them are likely to be those with benign intent who are thus unable to contribute where they otherwise might. -
778:
article. Furthermore, what about "vandalism is swiftly corrected" - well, that's something of a myth too. I didn't check over the entire three months or so of those 500 edits - but over a week or so, the article was screwed up maybe 35% of the time...and in almost every case the vandalism was some sort of obscene text. So - in addition to the wasted efforts of all of those editors, we can imagine that close to 35% of our readership who wanted to read about automobiles came away with an eyeful of crap. That might be acceptable for articles about very obscure subjects - but for
526:
first article(s) a user sees good to the claim "...which anyone can edit". It is disingenuous of us not to. The trouble of course is that the IRC channels make the Main Paged articles look positively terrifying in vandalism terms, when in fact the good edits are usually also rising in proportion to the edit rate (various statistics have shown this). Given that, and given the fact that these are show-cases of one form or another, we should be reluctant to semi-protect these articles.
766:
anonymity - but we're talking about automobiles and computers - hardly things where anonymous posting is essential for the continuing freedom of the author! So I'm going to dismiss the "NEED" argument and test the other two reasons. I decided to test those two hypotheses by looking at the actual edit histories (it's hard work - and perhaps a little subjective - but the numbers are sufficiently compelling that a wide margin of experimental error doesn't change the conclusions).
31:
1247:
list consensus, shmailing list shconshenshush. It most certainly is a substantive change to say that anything on the main page can just be locked down, to say that if more than one static IP is hitting a page, it should now be protected rather than them blocked, to go from not pre-emptive to pre-emptive when you feel like it (someone else took that out before, too), and to go from heavy vandalism to merely vandalism.
314:
magic cure you are yearning for - it is a temporary crutch for some specific situations, to be carefully used along with other tools such as IP blocking or article protection. The bottom line remains the same - you need to watch your article, if it is very contentious you may need to resort to s-protect to at least reduce the pressure. Remember that all admins are here to help you, plus you can go to the
1235:
mailing list; there was consensus to change it to an image of a small lock or similar, but a couple of editors opposed it and the others couldn't be bothered arguing, so the ugly templates remains and is therefore not popular. I don't use sprotection at all idiosyncratically; could you say why you think I do? Please look at WP:PP and you'll see how it's being used. This policy should describe that.
486:
under
Knowledge policy; at the moment it is not. Others follow this as a personal policy - fair enough, but this could be frustrating for other users who are not admins, see nothing in the policy to prevent semi-protection, and yet do not see it happening. Many others (myself included) appear to be in a state of confusion and this leads to situations where pages such as
1207:
only when the attack is extraordinary. The reason the stuff about durations got added in (I forget by who; it's probably further up here somewhere) was because last time you took it out, the page left no guidance of any kind about what non-admins might expect/request nor to new admins about what to apply. To answer your edit summary, I already
1489:. Only one editor objected to the policy proposal, and all objections were rebutted. Furthermore, five established editors (including myself) supported it. Additionally, the arguments in favor of semi-protecting official policy pages were far stronger than the arguments against it. I don't see why this is a "drastic new policy proposal"
504:
semi-protection? Do they want it so that it is a 'dire circumstances' solution? Do they want it so that it is introduced as with other articles but maintained for a restricted length of time, or a restricted proportion of an article's time on the main page? Are there any other solutions out there to the problem that people have thought of?
688:
leads me to a conclusion that we should consider pernamently semi-protecting this article; and further, that we may want to semi-protect other articles targeted by linkspam (which I'd assume would include cities and other places that are touristical attractions, if they are also target by linkspam vandals in such a manner). Comments?--
1664:
The changes don't stick, but making sure they don't can involve a lot of hassle and time-wasting. It's not just vandalism, Splash, but people with three edits and 10 minutes experience turning up to make changes; but, because it's not vandalism, we can't just roll back, can't violate 3RR, but have to
1632:
I find the manner of 'implementation' here rather unpleasant. "I propose this! I hear some objections! They are wrong to object! Thus this is policy! No, you may not say it isn't!". More substantively, it doesn't matter in the least if policy pages get some vandalism, since it doesn't actually change
1590:
changes, such as grammar and typo fixes, but I strongly object to the inclusion of this proposal. (Guess that makes it two sysops for and two sysops against if you're counting, but that's wholly irrelevant anyway, heh). I've made my comments on the proposal page, but won't edit war any further to get
1342:
People can always e-mail admins if their talk page is sprotected. I don't think female admins should have to put up with being called c***ts and being told what sexual practises they're going to be subjected to, just because they blocked someone's sockpuppet. That's the kind of situation, whether you
1328:
Along those lines, yep. If you're interacting with the users who cannot talk to you, particularly those who you are preventing from editing, you need to be available to talk to them. This is why people insist on email enabling during RfA and the like. Vandalism isn't the same as harrassment though; I
882:
You are arguing in absolutes - I am arguing from practicality and the balance of benefits. If EVERY article - or even 10% of articles were semi-protected, I agree that we'd be losing something important. If 0.1% of the most vandalised articles are semi-protected, I think we lose a negligable amount
529:
The reason I reverted your particular change was that it simply said they "may be protected" when really the case should be that they "can be protected in emergencies/dire circumstances/things are totally out of control/under deliberate targetted attack" or some similar phrasing that puts sprotection
407:
I think the policy could do with a bit of clarification here. Forgive me if it has come up already. But at the moment this page gives no advice specifically on pages linked to the main page. Given that the protection policy does do this - stating unequivocaly that main page linked articles should not
169:
Semi-protection would stop virtually all vandalism of the page, and similar pages, because the vast majority of vandalistic edits on it are made by anonymous users and the rest are almost all new users. There are some reverts of edits made by established users, but those are just disagreements rather
1316:
Splash, what does this sentence mean exactly? "Those of users engaging with new and/or unregistered editors should be protected sparingly to permit communication." If someone is being harassed, are you saying that, before we help them by sprotecting their talk page, we first of all have to check (a)
485:
However, my experiences suggest that the current situation - where linked articles are mentioned on the protection policy but not the semi-protection policy - simply causes confusion. Some people appear to be labouring under the impression that semi-protection of any linked article is also prohibted
366:
The good have to outlast the bad - but having the patience to open an account so you can edit semi-protected pages is something where the good will also outlast the bad. What vandalism does is to drastically reduce the amount of time serious editors can spend on writing an encyclopedia - and that's
1676:
I think that the solution here is not to restrict editing to experienced users, but to explicitly allow rollback and maybe 3RR exemptions for generally unhelpful policy changes, even if they aren't vandalism. I think that the criteria under which admin rollback may be used are far too narrow right
1246:
The hoo-haa over what the template should or should not contain bemused me not inconsiderably; I'm surprised you're still on that. But I quite often see people go and add it to sprotected articles that didn't get tagged because, well, I'd be guessing, but I suppose they feel it appropriate. Mailing
1065:
But your addition went considerably beyond just templates: it said that it does not apply to pages that are not articles. That covers some 12 or 13 (?) namespaces and is sweeping in its assumption. Freely-editable applies to all pages without exception, save for those that are mission critical (the
960:
It appears that people have been semi'ing HRTs recently so I figured it wouldn't hurt adding that to this policy. It seems quite reasonable to me that the maxim "everyone can edit the encyclopedia" does not necessarily apply to complex or frequently-used templates that require a bit of expertise to
900:
Certainly full protection is theoretically needed in order to avoid vandalism completely - but 99% or more of the vandalism goes away with mere semi-protection. If you deal with absolutes - your argument is convincing - but if you are pragmatic about things, then IMHO, it's entirely wrong. I also
313:
article only. They can decide to (and often do) pick on WP as a whole, attacking random articles. So they could still set up as many handy dummy accounts as they wish, let them sit a few days to satisfy any 'newness' criterion, and then attack your article, at random. So again, s-protect is not the
161:
to many unsuccessful RfAs of editors with high edit counts). If they don't come back to reread it and they are not informed otherwise, they may retain those beliefs indefinitely. Also, if someone had made a regular edit or two soon after, without noticing the vandalism, it might have gone unnoticed
1532:
Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: ā appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by
991:
High risk templates are normally inexistent. There are high use/high visibility templates. For the high use, I would say over 10'000 transclusions is definitely a case for full protection (but this is not the sole criterion). An unprotected 10K template is a high risk. As such, high risk templates
883:- but win enormously. The pragmatic balance is between the loss of a tiny number of edits to a tiny number of articles versus the saving of immense amounts of frustration on behalf of a large fraction of our existing editors. If you deal only in absolutes then the front page should be unprotected.
777:
So - if we had had semi-protection over those 500 edits, what would we have lost? NOTHING WHATEVER. What would we have gained? That's harder to quantify - but 200 wasted reversions represent a significant amount of editor's time that could presumably have been spent improving this or some other
773:
was edited about 200 times by anonymous users and 300 by named users. Of those 200 anonymous edits, all but EIGHT were vandalisms of one kind or another and of the 300 named user edits, (inevitably) nearly 200 were reversions of anonymous vandalism. So we have a 200-edit effort in anti-vandalism
277:
Thanks for your thoughts. In essence you seem to be argueing there's no point in trying because it wont work. This certainly wouldn't be the case with my article. That was a case of "drive-by" vandalism - lots of different people coming along at different times and thinking lets do something funny
215:
to be semi-protected. I have contributed quite a bit to this article and have it on my watch list. However, most of the changes that are done are vandalism by unregistered users. But apparently there's not enough vandalism to merit semi-protection!! I was advised to add it to my watchlist and just
185:
first, or at least eventually, but I suggest we just try semi-protecting this one page for a couple of weeks, if there is a consensus to do so, and see how it goes. If semi-protection is implemented permanently, I think there should either be no notice on the page itself (with an explanation given
165:
I'm strongly opposed to unnecessary protection, especially permanent protection. However, semi-protection only blocks anonymous users and very new registered users, most of whom are unfamiliar with
Knowledge policies and ill equipped to make substantive edits to the policy anyway. Also, they would
1206:
It wasn't a copyedit, it was a rewrite. It might (now) describe how you use it, but that's fairly idiosyncratic. Most admins don't protect articles permanently, and most consider the tag more or less par for the course. Articles from the main page are not protected just because they get attacked;
1184:
It wasn't a rewrite, but a copy edit. Some of the writing in the version you restored was poor and unnecessary, or entirely subjective. What is "serious" vandalism from multiple IPs or accounts, as opposed to vandalism from multiple IPs or accounts? Saying admins have the ability to "temporarily"
1615:
John, I agree that policy pages should be semi-protected; in fact, I'd go even further and introduce minimum-edit qualifications or something. However, it's something that's been proposed before and while many supported, many objected too, so it needs thorough discussion before being added here.
1234:
It's not a rewrite at all (no substance is changed), but the writing needed tightening and so I did it. You were complaining recently on AN about people not using the tag. The fact is that the tag is ugly and it's not good to have it on pages protected for longer periods, as was discussed on the
801:
IMHO, the case for long-term semi-protection of continually and frequently vandalised pages is extremely compelling (unless the pages are of a nature where anonymity of legitimate contributors might be required for compelling reasons of possible retribution or persecution of named contributors).
687:
you will notice that it is hit with linkspam on the almost daily basis from various IPs. I looked through last 50 edits. Out of 24 anon edits - 23 were linkspam. Out of non IPs, 11 were lablelled as linkspam removal. That's means 2/3 of the edits in edit history are linkspam and it reverts! This
525:
and the fact that the policy here makes clear that semi-protection is a last resort. On Main Paged articles, we should be prepared, IMO, to go much more than just the proverbial "extra mile" and where we'd normally lock an article down if it were somewhere else, we should be striving to keep the
156:
the other day. What is disturbing about it is that it is an apparent attempt to change policy without anyone noticing rather just deleting the article or adding "you suck". Someone reading the page who is unfamiliar with
Knowledge policy might not realize that the article has been vandalized and
1080:
I see that my wording was overly broad. However, nobody is quivering in fear of edits. Rather, it is acceptable (within strict boundaries) to place limits on what certain parties can edit, in instances where the edits of said party have been shown to do (far) more harm than good. It is for this
850:
of the openness and the lack of a need to register at first. I, myself, first came here after editing an article, and then only after that became a registered user. I'm sure many of the other administrators and
Wikipedians here came through the same process. By permanently semi-protecting these
287:
In "real life" the bad guys lose out because there is an effective deterrent against people doing bad things. If protection was more widely used, vandals blocked a bit more readily, and maybe reported to their employers/colleges or even prosecuted on occasions, I'm sure you would find vandalism
1649:
are the subject of much edit-warring and disagreement, particulary from people who don't understand that even if they shoehorn a new piece of law-esque stuff in that says they can do the silly thing they can't otherwise do, they still can't do it. THis I suppose is the idea behind SlimVirgin's
97:
Splash, why do you want to tell people how long they have to wait before they can edit? The legit users will find out soon enough by simply continuing to try; the non-legit ones (and I suspect most of those we help with this edit will be non-legit) will know to prepare themselves with sleepers
765:
I know the arguments against this - vandalism is typically corrected very quickly - and sometimes valuable contributions come from anonymous users and sometimes editing anonymously is important. Well, I think that the need to edit articles about (say) Terrorism in
America might require some
820:
Without wanting to comment too directly on the arguments of this piece, I think its worth remembering here that 'anonymous' editors who show their IP address are in fact far less anonymous than us registered users who work under a pseudonym and need not give any information about ourselves.
503:
on main page linked articles. Now, what it says - as far as I'm concerned, anyway - is of less importance, but at the moment it creates confusion. This is why I created a section on the talk - I wanted to know what people wanted! Do people want it so that policy prevents main-page-linked
757:
are) - then the present policy seems to be to grant semi-protection for a while and then to withdraw it some weeks later (as specifically happened with both of those articles). Why is this a good idea? If vandalism is continual and ongoing from a wide variety of addresses then either
1081:
reason that anons cannot create pages, that new users cannot move pages, and that IP ranges can be blocked. It is quite reasonable to disallow (through semi-protection) new users to edit pages that require familiarity with the wiki to edit properly, in particular oft-used templates.
419:
I would propose that this page states that 'With the exception of the day's featured article, articles linked to from the main page can be semi protected. However, this must not be done as a pre-emptive action and semi-protection must not be maintained on such articles for more than
805:
But if the decision is that semi-protection cannot be applied as a permenant solution to a permenant problem - then we should stop short-term semi-protecting for the purposes of long-term vandalism because short-term protection doesn't come close to fixing the long-term problem.
1435:
I submit that this policy should be amended, to improve the integrity of official policy pages by permanently semi-protecting them, thereby preventing much vandalism and many good-faith but ill-advised edits against consensus by new and unregistered users. Please see
1492:-- it merely creates a small exception to the general theme of this policy for official policy pages, which new and unregistered users are highly unlikely to edit in beneficial manner. Finally, the decision of two administrators to act on this policy amendment (see
954:"This reasoning does not apply to pages that aren't articles, e.g. templates or pages in the Knowledge namespace. Indeed, it may be useful to permanently (semi-)protect pages that would require familiarity with Knowledge to make true improvements to, e.g.
361:
2. WP's openness is a natural magnet to both good and bad people - that's life. There is no magic solution - the good have to outlast the bad, just like in real life - that's why you need to monitor your watchlist and revert vandalism like most of us
1116:
I have removed this provision, as it is absolutely an unacceptable provision. No user who is dealing at all with vandals, new, or inexperienced editors should make it impossible for those users to contact them with questions or for an explanation.
256:
WP's openness is a natural magnet to both good and bad people - that's life. There is no magic solution - the good have to outlast the bad, just like in real life - that's why you need to monitor your watchlist and revert vandalism like most of us
541:. If some approximate codification of what amounts to current practise ā which does indisputably agree to keep Main Paged articles unprotected as a working assumption ā can be found, then perhaps it can be added. It's hard to see how to avoid
789:
I think there is a more subtle balance to be struck here. The number of vandalisms needs to be weighed against the number of regular editors who are reverting those vandalisms. In some of these unglamorous but 'headline' articles like
1127:
Your version would also make protection of user pages which the users remove warnings unprotectable unless you block th users...You may want to modify the blanking of warnings template which warns of protection of the user page. See
475:
I can see both the sides of the argument for and against semi-protection of linked articles and, though I'd probably weigh down on the side of 'semi-protect for a short time where necessary' view, I'd happily go along with any
149:? It is a very important official policy page and I feel that vandalism on it is more harmful than it would be on an ordinary page. It is not vandalized constantly, but it is vandalized regularly, about once or twice a day.
1277:
describing the way you wrote it; and even if it is, that would be descriptivism gone wrong. A policy shouldn't be amended to describe practises that are wrong just because someone/people happen to misunderstand sometimes!
761:
Having recently experienced the benefits of semi-protection - (zero vandalism in either article) - only to have it yanked away again (half a dozen vandals in a day) - I would very much like for protection to be permenant.
1190:
It seems to me that it's you who wants to editorialize and prescribe how sprotection ought to be used, rather than simply describing how it is in fact used. But regardless, the page should be written tightly if possible.
387:
The PRACTICAL truth is that semi protection works like a dream. It shuts off almost all vandalism and deters almost nobody who really wants to contribute. The two 'almosts' in that sentence in no way detract from it's
530:
beyond the reach of over-enthusiastic vandal fighters. (Who have the best intentions but who only see the bad edits, and rarely the good and have no counterweight to the hit-by-hit scrolling of the bots' lists.)
1185:
sprotect, when what you mean is they have the ability to sprotect. Saying it is a temporary measure," whereas in fact it is "usually" a temporary measure: the continuously protected pages are testimony to that.
1132:, and what about users who are not admins that are being targeted by vandals, your version would prohibit this protection as well... You therefore may want to modify your blanket change about no protections. --
1567:
1552:
1471:
1451:
1272:
I reversed those things I identified above but left what you term your tighter phrasing in place. It's not ok to widen protection policy one edit at a time in the name of improving the grammar. I don't see
1011:
Of course, the people who have been semi'ing HRTs (I'm not involved) have also been adding a "semi-protected" template to them. So assumedly they can all be found from there. Do you think this is risky?
382:
The problem isn't peaks of vandalism - it's continual, ongoing half a dozen random attacks per day vandalism. It doesn't "peak" and then go away - it just goes on and on forever at about the same level.
748:
I can understand the concept of applying semi-protection for a limited time in the event of very specific vandalism, edit wars, etc. But if an article is vandalised a dozen times a day (as for example
371:
together - you aren't generally pleased to discover the page is full of obscenities. It would be interesting to know how many readers (who are actually more important than contributors) are put off by
248:
As one who was in your situation in the past, and had a similar opinion at the time, here are some reasons I can think of today, with more experience, why having a more liberal semi-protect won't work:
416:
on
September 4th. There was no wheel warring - though maybe if different admins had been invovled there was certainly potential for it - just a general confusion/fudge over policy and precedent here.
343:
1. Anyone who is hell-bent on editing to the article will just set up a dummy one-time account, let it stew or use it randomly a few days (so it won't be brand new) and easily get around s-protect.
1482:
1437:
253:
Anyone who is hell-bent on editing to the article will just set up a dummy one-time account, let it stew or use it randomly a few days (so it won't be brand new) and easily get around s-protect.
1591:
this removed. Instead I ask that you please remove it while this is sorted out, and seek a wider consensus. And wee, we're making a wave of threaded conversation.. I hate when that happensĀ :/
1317:
whether the victim is an admin, and then also (b) look through his block log to see whether he's blocked a lot of unregistered editors and new accounts? And if he has, he has to tough it out?
758:
semi-protection should be a good thing and therefore permenantly applied - or a bad thing and thus never applied. There is simply no logic to applying a short-term fix for a chronic problem.
260:
If there is a real peak of vandalism, virtually any admin will gladly help - if one refuses, re-think your reasons and his/her refusal, and if you are still convinced it's needed, try another
355:
were semi protected, the amount of vandalism on both articles dropped from several per day to absolutely ZERO. There certainly are determined vandals - but they are a teeny-tiny minority.
437:
No. Certainly not in the sweeping sense you just added it to the project page at the very least. Articles linked from the Main Page should not be protected except in dire circumstance. -
1641:
to say you can. The vandalism does no damage - revert it, and move on. Don't start using pretty blunt instruments to 'solve' a 'problem' that doesn't actually exist. Now, policies like
162:
for days. As it was, it was about a half hour before I found it. Semi-protection would stop the everyday vandalism and the sneakier, potentially more harmful vandalism like this edit.
1303:
I took it from the section above this. Phil
Sandifer has a good point. Admins who are regularly blocking new users/unregistered users should not have their talk pages protected. -
587:
Hmm. He's struck again from 203.5.217.3 . At a different time of day to all his other edits. I'm guessing that's his workplace, since WHOIS suggests
Adelaide where it's 9.45am.
905:
if memory serves) - but those 'leaf' articles are not at issue here - they are almost never vandalised. It's the 'trunk' articles - with wide scope and obvious names like
158:
1521:
One solitary substantive objection to a policy proposal does not constitute a lack of consensus where there is otherwise substantial support for a proposal. The use of
98:
accounts four days in advance. Also, why do you want to add that sprotection should be lifted within hours? It almost never is, nor is there any reason it should be.
113:
I didn't add it; it was the result of the discussion above. It is the case that protection is usually removed within a few days, however. Why did you remove that? -
84:
72:
67:
59:
846:
above, but didn't acknowledge the many intangibles that semiprotection would have caused. For example, many of our users and editors were first attracted here
1543:
One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc.; if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary
794:, we have a small number of active editors - but a huge burden of vandalism. There are other articles which have a lot of vandalism (perhaps a lot more than
1650:
edit-countitis on policy pages - again, though, these people being wrong doesn't actually do any damage to the policies, since their changes never stick. -
367:
never a good thing. It also degrades the quality of the encyclopedia more than anything else. When you open a page to sit with your child and read about
992:
are now inexistent on this wiki. Semi-protection for <10K templates is a reasonable measure, as long as it is not advertised (please don't list them,
621:
Yep. Range blocks. But honestly, they are only useful for very short times. Any longer than say 30-45 minutes and collateral damage is caused by them. --
573:... but there is no indication how this is done. Is it possible to block all users 58.160.185.*Ā ? There has been persistent and sneaky vandalism to the
1000:
is a high risk. Otherwise, I don't care what Splash reverts or doesn't revert on this pageĀ :-). Just use common sense and, yes, take a dip from IAR. --
318:. Don't take no for an answer if you feel the amount of vandalism from multiple sources is excessive (single source vandals should be blocked by IP).
1508:
There is patently not consensus on that page (I objected, for example), and there hasn't been anywhere near enough time or discussion to form one.
838:
We must continue to remain committed to openness for all, even for those who don't chose to log in or register. You cite the specific examples of
1292:
I'm fine with your changes, except the talk page thing. User talk pages are sprotected if they're being vandalized or people are being harassed.
1170:
are highly editorial changes, to the extent that the edit summaries are baldly misleading. SlimVirgin, what was the reason behind your rewrite? -
315:
47:
17:
157:
think that it is okay to evade a block that you think is unjust or that anyone with a high edit count can become an admin (see the links on
126:
Sprotection should be lifted when the protecting admin thinks appropriate. Sometimes that's a few hours, sometimes days, sometimes longer.
1354:
That would be harrassment, not simple vandalism, and would not have arisen as a result of interactions with new or unregistered users. -
152:
I'm not basing my whole argument for semi-protection upon similar vandalism, as it is much rarer than regular vandalism, but I reverted
1329:
guess your talk page is permanently protected because of harrassment rather than because a bunch of silly newbs were playing with it. -
1050:
182:
1486:
1396:
I'd like to see at least a quick note in the article on "what to do in cases of apparent abuse of semi-protection." Thanks. --
212:
166:
still be able to suggest changes on the talk page or sign up and wait a few days so that they could edit the page themselves.
278:
today - not determined users trying to push a POV. Semi-protection would have been a very effective solution to this problem.
216:
revert vandalism when it occurs. Why should I bother - it's not my encyclopedia and the powers that be don't seem to care!
661:
656:
454:
OK, well its a shame that I had to try and add this to the article before anyone decided to respond. I accept the idea of
571:
in the case of a few static IP vandals hitting a page (blocking the vandals is a much better option than semi-protection)
665:
1250:
Idiosyncratic is protecting pages that get literally a handful of bad edits, and leaving them protected for ever. -
648:
170:
than vandalism. Semi-protection of an official policy page is less harmful than the protection of an article, like
38:
1046:
146:
1526:
1689:
1671:
1658:
1622:
1610:
1597:
1577:
1516:
1502:
1460:
1444:
1424:
1400:
1373:
1362:
1349:
1337:
1323:
1311:
1298:
1286:
1258:
1241:
1219:
1197:
1178:
1151:
1142:
1121:
1105:
1074:
1057:
1036:
1004:
985:
943:
917:
865:
825:
812:
735:
716:
702:
627:
608:
591:
581:
553:
522:
508:
445:
431:
397:
322:
296:
268:
242:
190:
132:
121:
104:
1665:
discuss, persuade etc. It is sometimes very time-consuming, especially when you get a few of them at once.
1586:
Yes, it was improper for him to use administrator rollback, but nonetheless it is not necessary to discuss
1367:
Well, of course it might. A lot of it comes from vandals who don't like seeing their nonsense rolled back.
798:- but if they have a large community of people watching them, then correction will none the less be swift.
1412:
204:' views are final here, and I know that lots of other admins and editors are very attached to building a "
1602:
I have posted something on the village pump to hopefully attract a wider audience to this discussion.
556:(PS. I saw your message, forgot about it, carried on, and then got reminded by your project page edit.)
1686:
1669:
1620:
1607:
1513:
1371:
1347:
1321:
1296:
1239:
1195:
857:
130:
102:
577:
page, from users 58.160.185.97, 58.160.185.80 and 58.160.185.32 (obviously all the same person).
110:
Why should we not tell them? This is an open editing project, and smoke and mirrors are not helpful.
601:
1551:'s claim that determining consensus requires lots of time and discussion contradicts his claim on
1397:
1148:
1137:
1118:
1082:
1013:
962:
293:
239:
225:- it makes wikipedia look foolish and amateurish have readers come across vandalism all the time
222:- it is demoralising to editors - particularly new editors - to have their contributions damaged
1147:"Should not be used to protect user talk pages that are the subject of vandalism" work for you?
208:" but I can't see the advantage of restricting semi-protection to the limited cases that it is.
1534:
936:
728:
695:
490:
are protected/unprotected thirty times in a day - a waste of admins' time, and it looks messy.
228:- it diverts resources away from building a good encyclopedia towards chasing after vandals.
1655:
1566:
has yet to respond to the rebuttals to the arguments he presented against this amendment on
1359:
1334:
1308:
1283:
1255:
1216:
1175:
1071:
713:
622:
574:
550:
542:
442:
118:
231:- many new editors don't know how to revert (I only found out after several hundred edits)
1682:
1666:
1617:
1603:
1563:
1548:
1509:
1467:
1368:
1344:
1318:
1293:
1236:
1192:
914:
852:
809:
394:
127:
99:
234:
What is the disadvantage with semi-protection? I dont understand the hesitation at all.
1642:
1638:
1637:
to say you do; you don't suddenly get to write opinionated articles if someone changes
1634:
1592:
1407:
822:
652:
505:
428:
175:
339:
says is not borne out by the facts (at least not of the articles I've been analysing):
1646:
1133:
955:
605:
588:
578:
289:
235:
521:
Maybe this is the case. I've always mentally operated on the principles laid out in
458:
of linked articles, but note that many articles linked to from the main page do get
1574:
1499:
1457:
1441:
1274:
1054:
1001:
932:
902:
724:
691:
336:
319:
265:
682:
219:
Perhaps people don't fully appreciate the impact that vandalism has to wikipedia:
1045:
As I wrote above: Yes, this is risky, please don't tag them (that's why I've put
1651:
1355:
1330:
1304:
1279:
1251:
1212:
1171:
1129:
1067:
709:
546:
487:
438:
409:
378:
3. If there is a real peak of vandalism, virtually any admin will gladly help...
201:
187:
114:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1633:
the policy. You don't suddenly get a barnstar for vandalism if someone changes
1498:) provides further evidence that there really is consensus for this amendment.
910:
839:
795:
791:
779:
770:
769:
I found that of the 500 edits over the three months prior to semi-protection,
754:
368:
352:
708:
How many thousand articles are you proposing a blanket semi-protection for? -
309:
You may be missing something. The 'bad guys' don't have to decide to pick on
537:
hours" thing is likely to fly because we'd be unlikely to find agreement on
1343:
call it vandalism or harassment, where talk page sprotection is important.
644:
1211:
put a note on the talk page, so I'm not sure why you asked me to do so. -
906:
843:
783:
750:
408:
be protcted - I think there is a bit of confusion over the issue. Taking
348:
1454:
to enact this amendment, I added it to this policy on
October 28, 2006.
744:
What is the point of short term semi-protection for long term vandalism?
178:, which are given as examples of continuously semi-protected articles.
1559:
a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand "
1478:
a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand "
996:). Mainting a page/category/tag-template that lists semi-portected
141:
Trial run of permanent semi-protection of Knowledge:Blocking policy
1481:
Consequently, purely procedural objections to the manner in which
1568:
Knowledge talk:Permanent semi-protection of official policy pages
1553:
Wikipedia_talk:Permanent_semi-protection_of_official_policy_pages
1472:
Wikipedia_talk:Permanent_semi-protection_of_official_policy_pages
1452:
Knowledge talk:Permanent semi-protection of official policy pages
171:
25:
1525:
is not an appropriate use of administrative privileges: per
1483:
Knowledge:Permanent semi-protection of official policy pages
1438:
Knowledge:Permanent semi-protection of official policy pages
288:
becoming the exception rather than the rule as at present.
1572:
removing it from the policy using administrative rollback.
1571:
1560:
1522:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1479:
1455:
1168:
1165:
678:
674:
670:
463:
153:
145:Would permanent semi-protection be appropriate for
545:with that, though, so no promises in advance... -
347:Perhaps - but during the several weeks that both
1485:was enacted are unpersuasive, especially since
499:Therefore, what is needed is for this page to
412:as an example, this was protected/unprotected
8:
1523:administrative rollback in content disputes
929:Agree with Steve; see also my post above.--
1539:(Reverted edits by X to last version by Y)
1392:Handling apparent abuse of this feature?
464:'as a temporary measure and last resort'
1681:use of rollback as discussed above).
1677:now (Note: This is not an excuse for
933:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
725:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
692:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
565:How to block vandals without accounts?
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
18:Knowledge talk:Semi-protection policy
7:
462:at the moment. I'd also reject that
1466:I have restored this amendment. As
24:
1450:Consensus having been reached on
1431:Proposed amendment to this policy
1541:and marks it as a minor change.
901:started with an anonymous edit (
183:Knowledge:Semi-protection policy
29:
600:Never mind. I got an answer at
533:I don't think that a specific "
213:List of terrorist organisations
1487:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy
703:23:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
638:Semi as a defense vs linkspam?
628:09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
609:05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
592:00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
582:00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
554:01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
509:21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
446:20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
432:07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
1690:20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1672:23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1659:23:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1623:20:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1611:18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1598:14:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1578:14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1517:13:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1503:05:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1461:02:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1445:03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1425:00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1401:11:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1374:23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1363:21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1350:21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1338:21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1324:16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1312:15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1299:15:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1287:14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1259:13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1242:13:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1220:13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1198:07:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1179:19:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1152:14:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
1143:23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1122:18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1106:13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
1075:17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1058:09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1047:template:Sprotected_template
1037:08:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
1005:08:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
986:08:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
944:19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
918:19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
866:13:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
826:08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
813:05:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
736:19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
717:22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
398:05:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
323:01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
297:23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
269:17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
243:16:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1708:
1112:Protecting user talk pages
642:If you look at history of
316:page protect request board
1562:I additionally note that
403:Main Page Linked Articles
191:08:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
147:Knowledge:Blocking policy
133:20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
122:19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1527:Knowledge:Administrators
913:- that need protection.
466:is paticularly sweeping.
181:We might need to modify
105:09:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1555:that "It is absolutely
753:and to a lesser degree
523:User:Raul654/protection
206:š that anyone can edit
1547:
211:I have just asked for
1530:
1160:Editorialising policy
994:please don't tag them
42:of past discussions.
1474:: "It is absolutely
721:As many as needed.--
1533:that user, with an
956:high-risk templates
602:Knowledge:Help desk
1139:Ā£ā¬Ć„Vā¬ mā¬ Ć„ mā¬Ā§Ā§Ć„gā¬
569:The article says:
1406:Post about it on
1140:
864:
90:
89:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1699:
1595:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1138:
1102:
1100:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1033:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1025:
982:
980:
978:
976:
974:
941:
939:
861:
855:
733:
731:
700:
698:
686:
668:
575:Alexander Downer
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1593:
1588:uncontroversial
1433:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1394:
1162:
1114:
1092:
1090:
1088:
1086:
1084:
1023:
1021:
1019:
1017:
1015:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
951:
942:
937:
931:
859:
786:, I think not.
746:
734:
729:
723:
701:
696:
690:
659:
643:
640:
567:
405:
198:
143:
95:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1705:
1703:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1464:
1463:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1248:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1201:
1200:
1187:
1186:
1161:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1040:
1039:
1008:
1007:
950:
947:
930:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
831:
830:
829:
828:
745:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
722:
689:
639:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
614:
613:
612:
611:
595:
594:
566:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
531:
527:
514:
513:
512:
511:
494:
493:
492:
491:
480:
479:
478:
477:
470:
469:
468:
467:
460:semi-protected
449:
448:
404:
401:
392:
391:
390:
389:
385:
384:
383:
375:
374:
373:
358:
357:
356:
340:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
302:
301:
300:
299:
282:
281:
280:
279:
272:
271:
262:
261:
258:
254:
250:
249:
197:
194:
176:George W. Bush
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
111:
94:
91:
88:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1704:
1691:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1653:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1624:
1621:
1619:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1596:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1576:
1573:
1570:, even after
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1470:explained on
1469:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1409:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1399:
1398:Writtenonsand
1391:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1189:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1149:Phil Sandifer
1146:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1119:Phil Sandifer
1111:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
989:
988:
987:
984:
983:
959:
957:
948:
946:
945:
940:
934:
919:
916:
912:
908:
904:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
867:
862:
854:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
827:
824:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
811:
807:
803:
799:
797:
793:
787:
785:
781:
775:
772:
767:
763:
759:
756:
752:
743:
737:
732:
726:
720:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
699:
693:
684:
680:
676:
672:
667:
663:
658:
654:
650:
646:
637:
629:
626:
625:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
610:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
576:
572:
564:
555:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
510:
507:
502:
501:say something
498:
497:
496:
495:
489:
484:
483:
482:
481:
474:
473:
472:
471:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
425:
423:
417:
415:
411:
402:
400:
399:
396:
386:
381:
380:
379:
376:
370:
365:
364:
363:
359:
354:
350:
346:
345:
344:
341:
338:
334:
333:
332:
331:
324:
321:
317:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
298:
295:
291:
286:
285:
284:
283:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
241:
237:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
209:
207:
203:
196:Extend policy
195:
193:
192:
189:
184:
179:
177:
173:
167:
163:
160:
155:
150:
148:
140:
134:
131:
129:
125:
124:
123:
120:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
92:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1678:
1631:
1587:
1556:
1542:
1538:
1535:edit summary
1531:
1475:
1465:
1434:
1411:
1395:
1271:
1208:
1164:Things like
1163:
1115:
1083:
1064:
1014:
997:
993:
963:
953:
952:
928:
903:Red Squirrel
847:
808:
804:
800:
788:
776:
768:
764:
760:
747:
641:
623:
570:
568:
538:
534:
500:
459:
455:
427:Thoughts? --
426:
421:
418:
414:thirty times
413:
406:
393:
377:
360:
342:
310:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
210:
205:
200:I know that
199:
180:
168:
164:
151:
144:
96:
78:
43:
37:
1130:Template:Wr
624:Woohookitty
488:Steve Irwin
410:Steve Irwin
369:Automobiles
202:Jimbo Wales
36:This is an
1683:JYolkowski
1667:SlimVirgin
1618:SlimVirgin
1604:JYolkowski
1564:JYolkowski
1549:JYolkowski
1510:JYolkowski
1468:JYolkowski
1369:SlimVirgin
1345:SlimVirgin
1319:SlimVirgin
1294:SlimVirgin
1237:SlimVirgin
1193:SlimVirgin
915:SteveBaker
911:Automobile
853:Flcelloguy
840:automobile
810:SteveBaker
796:Automobile
792:Automobile
780:Automobile
771:Automobile
755:Automobile
476:consensus.
456:protection
395:SteveBaker
372:vandalism.
353:Automobile
128:SlimVirgin
100:SlimVirgin
1594:Cowman109
998:templates
823:Robdurbar
506:Robdurbar
429:Robdurbar
424:hours.'
388:validity.
159:this page
154:this edit
93:New users
85:ArchiveĀ 8
79:ArchiveĀ 7
73:ArchiveĀ 6
68:ArchiveĀ 5
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1134:PinchasC
949:Addition
907:Computer
844:computer
784:Computer
751:Computer
606:Rocksong
589:Rocksong
579:Rocksong
349:Computer
290:AndrewRT
236:AndrewRT
1643:WP:NPOV
1639:WP:NPOV
1635:WP:VAND
1575:John254
1500:John254
1458:John254
1442:John254
1408:WP:AN/I
1055:Ligulem
1002:Ligulem
848:because
662:protect
657:history
337:Crum375
320:Crum375
266:Crum375
39:archive
1652:Splash
1647:WP:NOR
1356:Splash
1331:Splash
1305:Splash
1280:Splash
1252:Splash
1213:Splash
1172:Splash
1068:Splash
961:edit.
710:Splash
666:delete
645:KrakĆ³w
547:Splash
439:Splash
188:Kjkolb
115:Splash
1414:Voice
1275:WP:PP
1085:: -->
1053:). --
1016:: -->
965:: -->
938:talk
860:note?
730:talk
697:talk
683:views
675:watch
671:links
543:creep
335:What
16:<
1687:talk
1645:and
1608:talk
1514:talk
1495:and
1417:-of-
1101:<
1032:<
981:<
909:and
842:and
782:and
679:logs
653:talk
649:edit
362:here
351:and
311:your
294:Talk
257:here
240:Talk
174:and
1685://
1606://
1557:not
1537:of
1512://
1476:not
1420:All
1209:had
1051:tfd
1049:on
172:Jew
1679:my
1656:tk
1654:-
1440:.
1360:tk
1358:-
1335:tk
1333:-
1309:tk
1307:-
1284:tk
1282:-
1256:tk
1254:-
1217:tk
1215:-
1176:tk
1174:-
1167:,
1136:|
1072:tk
1070:-
958:."
858:A
821:--
714:tk
712:-
681:|
677:|
673:|
669:|
664:|
660:|
655:|
651:|
604:.
551:tk
549:-
443:tk
441:-
292:-
238:-
119:tk
117:-
64:ā
1545:.
1529:,
1410:.
1278:-
1099:t
1097:n
1095:a
1093:i
1091:d
1089:a
1087:R
1030:t
1028:n
1026:a
1024:i
1022:d
1020:a
1018:R
979:t
977:n
975:a
973:i
971:d
969:a
967:R
935:|
863:)
856:(
727:|
694:|
685:)
647:(
539:x
535:x
422:x
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.