Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Shouldn't the protection policy page also be protected?

I think that the Protection Policies page should also be protected because there is a potential for vandals to change the description of the different levels of protection offered in the page.Duelistgamer (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The main protection policy is already semi-protected. Full protection isn't justified because the policy isn't the property of the admin, but of the community. That is different than user pages, where users are generally given domain over the content of their own pages and subpages, within reason and policy. If the page needed full protection for some reason (edit warring, etc.) then it would be applied for the period of time necessary to prevent disruption, but not longer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandals can change the content of asll our core policies too. In fact, I believe that Wikipedia:Vandalism would be more of a vandalism target, and it's only semi. Semi protection will prevent most of the vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites

Please update the number of World Heritage Sites to 48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingSummer (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to make edit requests. Go to the talk page of the page you want edited and make a request there. If (and only if) the talk page itself has been protected should you proceed to make a request at WP:RFPP. smtchahal^talk 06:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should Rule about Edits During Full Page-Protection Be Clarified?

Should the policy about edits by admins during full page protection be clarified as to what as "uncontroversial" edits? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Bwilkins' interpretation. We have two mutually exclusive interpretations of this policy. Bwilkins interprets it to mean that admins should only edit through protection to "remove policy violating text/images". Nuclear Warfare interprets it to mean that admins may continue to edit through protection to "shape the article's content". I believe that Bwilkins' view reflects the long accepted interpretation of this policy. I hope people commenting here say which of these interpretations they would like to see as policy. Once we have consensus about that we can work on the wording. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bwilkins' interpretation. Policy-violating text/images includes BLP, copy-right violations, libel, a variety of other issues, but full page protection should not mean that admins can shape the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bwilkins' interpretation Admins are supposed to be editors with additional tools to support the community, not their own viewpoints and the responsibility to use them wisely, not a "higher caste" of editors. NE Ent 02:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC) It should be painful for an article to be full protected, so that it gets unprotected as soon as possible. Allowing uncontroversial edits reduces the urgency to return part of Wikipedia to what should be it's normal state. NE Ent 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Probably yes but certainly do not support Bwilkins' opinion (I don't think it's an "interpretation"; I'm not seeing anything in the policy that could possibly be interpreted as meaning that). Uncontroversial means not likely to arouse controversy - obvious fixes of various kinds, which may or may not involve removal, and may or may not be connected with "policy violations". The clarification should be along the lines that if someone makes a good-faith objection to a change which an administrator considered uncontroversial, then it's not in fact uncontroversial and should be reverted pending consensus. Also, whether or not something is "policy-violating" can be extremely controversial, so that should not be used as a reason for an admin to force through changes. Victor Yus (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Administrators are supposed to have enough clue to judge what is controversial. For instance, correcting the gross grammar error in this proposal would be uncontroversial. Sorry, I am not going to endorse or reject someone else's opinion which I only know about second hand from what is said above. SpinningSpark 17:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bwilkin's interpretation - per the reasons I stated above in the discussion. One of which is: whether an edit is controversial is subjective, introducing new information can potentially lead to longer full-protection periods and increase tension between editors and admins on a certain page. Although as I said, it's rare for a page to get fully protected let alone disputed over by admins and editors during the protection period, it's better to be prepared and implement relevant policies than waste everyone's time at ANI in the inevitable future. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it - whether something is policy-violating is often very subjective; but whether it is controversial really is not (if no-one objects to the substance of the change, then it's not controversial). The time-wasting at ANI etc. seems to be the fault of those who care more about personal status and feelings of inferiority than about the real thing we should be focused on, which is making Wikipedia articles better. Victor Yus (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to your first point; not really, in reality if you break the law, you break the law, there's no if or buts (in most cases anyways), what people usually debate over is whether there is enough evidence to support the prosecutor or defendant's claims and whether a sentence is too harsh or lenient. The same applies on Wikipedia, except the policies here are much more simple and straight forward; all admins need to determine is whether the text or image violates copyright laws, does the source support a certain claim and whether information in an article should be removed as a result of legal proceedings. For edit wars over content, admins should simply restore the most stable version and let users discuss the content; in most cases the most stable version is the version that has been live for the longest. I can't fathom any other reason why an admin would want to fully protect an article (not page). As for your ANI point...if users edit an article to the point where it gets fully protected, they are most likely going to take any arisen issue related to conduct to ANI asap due to already brewing tension between editors. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are simple and straightforward?! Have you read them? In any case, I would far rather trust an admin to fix a typo or grammatical error than to judge whether (for example) some piece of text is supported by a sufficiently reliable source. And an edit war over some part of an article shouldn't hold up improvement of other parts of the article, which might be totally unrelated to the dispute. Victor Yus (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion the guidelines are straight forward as long as you're aware of them, however applying them is a different story I guess, though usually editors and admins struggle to apply them due to the complexity of the content in question and our lack of expertise in field. It's difficult to determine which section should be off-limits as they are most likely going to be interrelated as you would expect from an article on one topic. Typos and grammar are not exactly my top concerns, I'm fair more concerned about admins abusing their powers and inadvertently causing disruption by editing pages and later claiming that they did not violate any rule. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Leave the wording in the policy as is. It is easy to define uncontroversial in the circumstances where a page is protected, it is any edit where there is no objection to the edit on the talk page to that edit, I see no problem with following the usual WP:BRD cycle and so I see no need to change the policy. BTW I would expect as a sign of good faith that an admin would self-revert if it is brought to his or her attention that there was an objection to an edit (s)he made to a fully protected page. See my posting to this page on 3 May 2013 where I gave a more detailed explanation of how I reached this opinion.-- PBS (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To argue that admins should apply BRD to protected pages is to argue that they should treat the page exactly as though it were not protected, while everyone else is locked out. If that is written into this policy, it will be the only policy to assert that admins may use the tools to gain an advantage when editing content. A few years ago that would have been unthinkable. It's sad to see what little remains of the early ideals of this place.80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comment (23:42, 13 May 2013 -- it pre-dates you posting here and has more detailed reply), I think that you are using rhetoric to make a point about something other than non-controversial changes. In this posting you use the phrase "to gain an advantage" which implies controversial changes, and this policy already excludes such changes. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that I would be okay with wording that allows admins to make small fixes. See this post, for example. What we have at the moment is people interpreting the policy to mean everything from admins may make no substantive edits, to admins may make any edit they like. Your position is actually the most extreme. You want admins to apply BRD to protected pages, i.e. to treat them exactly as though they were not protected. Read the page you're linking to:"When in doubt, edit!". This policy needs to be clear about which edits are acceptable. Using the word "uncontroversial" makes the policy as clear as mud, as the numerous interpretations of "uncontroversial" on this page testify. Of course we can't detail every possible scenario, but we can be clear about what we mean. If we really want admins to continue writing the article while it is protected, we should say so. If we want them to do nothing more than make minor corrections and to remove policy violations, we should say so. All this stuff about admins using their good judgement is nonsense. We will have as many different interpretations of "uncontroversial" as there admins. And every one of them will be correct. No wonder admins don't want the wording clarified. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment all those who were involved in the section #Remove "uncontroversial" from the policy. should be informed of this RfC, or their opinions should be considered when deciding if there is or is not a consensus for a change of wording.-- PBS (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment - Done Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Leave wording as is - I agree with PBS's comments above re BRD and good-faith self-reverting. Bwilkins' comment linked above may be too restrictive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The idea of all admins reverting their edits when others object to them is nice and all but lets face reality; if an admin is willing to make an edit that would be deemed controversial on an already fully-protected page, I regretfully doubt that they are going to revert it themselves. As not all fully protected pages are regularly patrolled by admins, it may then be necessary for editors on that page to seek the attention of other admins on forums such as ANI, increasing bureaucracy and placing more pressure on already overloaded forums. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your comment shows a lack of good faith. However all admins are human and human make mistakes, so it may be that an edit that an admin makes may be seen by others (acting in good faith) to be controversial. If an admin makes a change to a protected page, they will be aware that they have, so it would not be unreasonable for other editors to expect them to see their comments on the talk page. An additional comment on the user talk page of the admin would be seen. If after a reasonable time has passed the editing admin had not reverted and no other admin who watches the page has revert it. Then and only then is a post to ANI justified. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's one thing to make a mistake but it's another to put yourself in a situation where you're likely to make a mistake. Now, I'm not talking about grammar fixes, format fixes or such, I'm talking about the addition of new content or the alteration of existing content. I really don't see why admins would risk provoking editors by doing anything as such, an admin with respect for consensus and the community would simply wait a few days to add whatever they wish with no limitations; I have a hard time seeing the one without, self-reverting without being pointed to the controversy(this thread) that he may cause. I know most admins are genuine decent editors who will do the right thing and have respect for the community but one must note that where there's a majority, a minority exists. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I suppose it is necessary. The text is already pretty clear: changes may be made to a fully protected page if and only:

A change is proposed on the talk page, and there is consensus to make the change.

A change is proposed on the talk page, and there is no objection after a reasonable time -- that is, the change is uncontroversial.

There really isn't any other way to interpret "Changes to a fully protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out by an administrator if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." which is the operative prescription. There is no provision for making any edit whatsoever, by any person, for any reason, at any time, that has not first been proposed on the talk page. This is quite clear. Now, if some persons are determined to ignore that (which I gather is what is going on), this is a political issue (either they can get away with it or they can't) not a rules issue, and changing the rule probably won't help that much. However I suppose it might help to make it that much harder for people to do that, and at the same time we can add an exception for dire emergencies (such a the presence of libel). So something like this might be useful: "Changes to a fully protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out by an administrator if there is consensus for them or if after five days there are no objections, except that in a dire emergencies such as the presence of libel any administrator can (indeed must) edit the page immediately." Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Herostratus are you aware of the great Men's rights movement move debate? A among other things it generated an ANI and a couple of RfCs at WP:AT (eg RfC (October 2012)). The debate was over the different interpretations of the word "should". There was no agreement on whether "should" means "ought" or "must" (it seems that individuals, and perhaps different dialects of English, interpret the word differently). What was agreed in that specific case was not to substitute "must" for "should". -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Should" means "should", which in this context means "is obliged to; has a duty to". If they wanted to write either "must" or "ought" they could have; they didn't. "Must" indicates an absolute compulsion, which is overly inflexible; there may and can be cases (libel for instance) that are exceptions. ("Lacking character sufficient to see one's duty clearly" is not a valid exception.) So "must" would not have been a good word to use here, and they didn't. "Ought" means (among other things) "is advised to". So "ought" would not have been a good word to use here, and they didn't. It's pretty obvious that in this instance "should" means at least "God damn well ought, unless you've got a pretty compelling reason that you can (and do) explain in a way such that most any reasonable and disinterested person will accept it". It sure as heck doesn't mean "might want to, if you're in the mood, and it's not too much trouble". Any reading of "should" to mean that is idiosyncratic and not supported by any legitimate dictionary. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"they" in this case means "us [editors]". You are using one set of definitions (which you "should" have cited). There are many more: These are the definitions from the OED:

• Must:
  • 1 "A use of ‘must’ (must v.1) to express a command, obligation, or necessity; (hence) an obligation, a duty; a compulsion."
  • 2 "colloq. (orig. U.S.). Something highly recommended or not to be missed; an absolute essential for a particular purpose or end."
  • 3 "colloq. (orig. U.S.). That is compelling in some respect; essential, mandatory."

• Ought: "That which should be done, the obligatory; a statement using ‘ought’, expressing a moral imperative. Also concr.: something necessary."
• Should: has no independent entry as a verb in the OED instead it is given as the past tense of "shall", which has lots of different nuances. Shall I list all of them?

-- PBS (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Bwilkins' interpretation Wikipedia is built on consensus. That means editors being able to edit equally, and discuss things on talk pages. That means admins should not be editing pages that are fully protected unless there is a need to edit that page. It is not for tidying up an article, correcting spelling/grammar errors, changing headings etc. If admins continue to edit pages under full protection without proper justification then the next time Wikipedia_talk:Protected_Page_Editor comes up it will pass, which will create two levels of editors. Pages will be protected to stop others editing. Full page protection is here for a reason, not for admins to treat it as a special perk, such as when the Boston bombings article was fully protected. If this rule is not clarified then admins abusing it need to be de-sysoped.Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the people who claim that they support "Bwilkins interpretation" really realize what it says. By allowing admins to remove "policy-violating" material (without requiring that such removal be uncontroversial), we would be giving them much more power, not less. If your aim is to protect people's feelings by stopping admins from looking superior to others (which seems rather petty and silly to me, but still) then you should be insisting that their changes go through the same procedure as those of other editors (i.e. first be proposed on the talk page, etc.), not giving them any new blanket powers to make certain types of changes. Victor Yus (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Leave the current wording alone. If the existence of a problem had been documented, I might feel differently, but no documentation whatsoever has been provided. Administrators damn well should be able to make simple, uncontroversial fixes to articles, and the idea that fixing something such as a spelling error or a malformed wikilink requires prior discussion and consensus is utterly asinine and antithetical to the creation and maintenance of a serious reference work. When an admin goes further and oversteps that boundary, it's not the end of the world: either the admin becomes aware of the transgression and self-reverts or another admin reverts and the first admin suffers the consequences. In the end, it really comes down to what we're here to do. If we're here to develop an impossibly complex set of written rules governing each other's behavior in the creation of an authoritarian social media site masquerading as an encyclopedia, then maybe we should not only support proposals like this one but also officially deprecate discretion while we're at it. If, on the other hand, we actually are here to build an encylopedia, we'll assume good faith of our trusted contributors, trust them to do the right thing, call them on it when they occasionally do the wrong thing, abandon our attempts to elevate procedure over reason, and waste no more time arguing about solutions to nonexistent problems. Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose BWilkins proposal Though perhaps we need to point out that if an admin makes an edit that another editor challenges as controversial they should of course be willing to explain it or self revert. It was my desire to make a minor typo fix to a protected page that first got me thinking about adminship, and if we continue to trust admins to use their judgement then perhaps this will prompt more editors to volunteer for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Since the very beginning it has been a bright line that admins do not use the tools to gain an advantage when editing content. Now we have an arb in the vanguard of those arguing against that fundamental principle. And we have admins arguing that the ability to use the tools edit through protection should be used as a carrot to entice people to apply for adminship. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's NOT an "advantage" to the admins! Wikipedia is not a battleground or competition - most of the things that people do here are things that all of us would wish to see done. When admins make uncontroversial changes, it's to the advantage of all of us, and to the advantage of Wikipedia's users. Nothing except a warm glow of satisfaction accrues to the person who actually made the changes - and you can experience that glow yourself, by the simple token of proposing uncontroversial changes on the talk page and waiting for an admin to come along and make them. Victor Yus (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly who is the Arb you refer to? Secondly what advantage does it give the admin if they have to revert if anyone says their edit was contentious? I've fixed thousands of typos on this site, very very rarely does anyone object to my typo fixes. But it would be a real annoyance if I had to leave a calvary troop charging through some contentious battle because the page was fully protected and even something as uncontentious as changing calvary troop to cavalry troop had first to be discussed on the talkpage. RFA is a process by which we give extra tools to trusted editors, and one of the things we should be able to trust admins to do is to know whether an edit to a fully protected page is contentious or not. It seems that this whole proposal is sparked by one incident, and single incidents should be resolved by talking to the people who've allegedly made a contentious change and reminding them of the policy - unless someone can come up with an article other than Boston where there is alleged to be a problem then why are we even debating changing the policy? ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as likely to be yet another practice that causes editors to decide WP is for the elitist insiders and just leave. NE Ent 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Leaving the wording as is. Leave admins to make up their own minds, they are supposed to be able to make up their own minds. Plus what is controversial would be different depending on the reason for protection (sockpuppetry compared with edit warring - and what the edit warring was over). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Leave as is. I've explained myself at length above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Clarification is clearly needed; what that clarification shouldbe is harder. I came to this conversation because of the editing at the boston bombing article. The editing through protection by admins I respect was problematic for me. Had they been removing BLP violations, libellous or offensive material I@d have had no problem. But reorganising it, correcting spelling mistakes and grammar errors (which is often fraught anyway) when other editors couldn't was very probelmatic for me. I don't think admins should be editing through full protection unless there's consensus for it. There's consensus for removal of BLP and libel and where something's been agreed on the talk page, there's not consensus for correcting grammar, or whether para a should be before or after para b. GedUK  11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not consensus for correcting grammar? So there are significant numbers of Wikipedia editors who think that bad grammar might be preferable to good grammar in articles?! (There might not be consensus that a particular grammatical change is desirable, but that also applies to a particular removal of alleged libel or anything else; and in either case, any disagreement will quickly become apparent.) Victor Yus (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If indeed there is consensus that grammatical errors and other unambiguous minor problems (e.g., broken links or unclosed tags) should go uncorrected until protection is lifted or consensus to fix them becomes clear, then obviously I am contributing to the wrong project. Leaving such easily fixed problems in an article makes us look slipshod or illiterate or both, and it is not in the interest of our readers (who by and large couldn't care less if an article is protected, or why). Consider a hypothetical instance: "Jones denied there alegation in court; claiming he never sawthe money<ref name="reuters and was aquitted on all counts." There are seven errors in the preceding sentence. Is it really desirable, let alone necessary, that they be painstakingly enumerated on the talk page? Should a certain interval then pass, just in case someone wants to debate whether they're really errors or how to fix them? Should there be an RfC, a 30-day wait, and a request for close at AN? That may sound profoundly silly (it does to me, anyway), but that seems to be the direction in which we're being asked to move. Rivertorch (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment My own opinion is that there should be consensus for correcting grammar or spelling (consistent with the variety of English in which the article is written). There is not likely to be consensus for moving paragraphs. The example given by Rivertorch should be corrected. It is wrong in both American English and any variety of Commonwealth English. The keyword is "unambiguous minor problems". If an article has unambiguous major problems, it is unlikely that there will be consensus on how to fix them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to date this change has been debated around article pages that are protected because of content disputes. However there are different types of pages in particular templates that are fully protected indefinatly, and it seems to me that those proposing a change have not considered that (as no one proposing the change has mentioned the different types of pages). -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an additional phrase, or sentence, explicitly suggesting that administrators should self revert if a change that they made proved to be controversial might be added to the section as alternative compromise to the proposed change, that might gain wider support. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Victor Yus (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Leave as is. I think we should be able to trust admins as to what is controversial or not. These articles are protected so that our readers can view a good version of the article. If we leave grammar, typos, format errors. etc. in, then it just makes us look bad. If an admin does an edit that is considered controversial then we can seek consensus to have that admin remove themselves from editing the article during protection.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bwilkins interpretation I don't want to pigeon-hole admin too greatly, but in a nutshell, edits to fully protected articles by admin should be limited to 1) purely maintenance or 2) fully supported by clear consensus. In other words, using the tools to bypass protection in order to serve the community (and not ourselves), the reason the community gave us the admin bit to begin with. Under no circumstances should an admin add new material that isn't supported by previous discussion. As many of have said, admin are not "Super-Editors". Full protection would otherwise advantage admin in their roles solely as editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bwilkins' interpretation; leave the page as it is. with the understanding that correcting obvious typos or fixing dead links is assumed to be supported by consensus. If an admin wishes to shape a protected article's content, he should do what the rest of us have to do, which is to propose the change and see whether there is a clear consensus to make it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Leave as is unless there is a definite need to address an ongoing widespread problem. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Too many times an admin has continued working on an article well after full protection has ben implemented. Now we all like to edit articles. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. Yet at the same time admins should not have the privalege of continued article shaping when the majority of the community is locked out. It creates a tiered social class of editors, doesn't contribute to the colaberative editing process, and obviously creates strife. Admin tools should be reserved for only the bare minimum amount of editing and then only when there is clear consnsus for such edits. Many have argued that minor edits such as spelling errors should be exempt. Yet spelling errors are the exeptions rather than the rules in these cases. I remember several years ago when Michael Jackson died. Edit warring became so bad that the article became fully protected. But that didn't stop many admins. Several admins continued the edit warring well past the protection. It was a very sad day for Wikipedias collaberative process. Unfortunatly we haven't learned from the debacle. This type of BS continues because some admins decide to use their own personal definition of "uncontroversial". Thats not only wrong, its Bull Shit. If it were up to me, every edit to a fully protected article would require talk page consensus, even spelling errors. Better to be safe than sorry, and I can promise you, this is a very sorry situation.JOJ ^Hutton 23:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bwilkins' interpretation. I really think this should be a no-brainer. Consensus is needed for edits to a fully protected article, and of course this applies to edits by an admin too, as, in that moment, he has to be considered as an editor. Lectonar (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Notice - there's another RfC under way, at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013, which looks to be leading to the implementation of PC2, which would allow not only admins, but also reviewers, to edit through (a form of) full protection. I've suggested there that the issue being discussed here really needs to be resolved in some way before this happens, otherwise a whole new set of disputes are going to arise. Victor Yus (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should set up a dedicated RfC page and call for a consensus on whether the wording should be changed. From the number of people that participated here, it's clearly of interest to many editors and readers. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• ALERT ALERT ALERT - Yet another example of an Adnin continuing to edit through a Full Protection. Article Doctor Who was fully protected over edit warring, but a few hours after the protection went into place, an admin came along and made an edit. Not only was this not a minor or even uncontroversial edit, but it was basically a continuation of the edit war. How much longer do we need to let this BS go on before we write a policy to address this?--JOJ ^Hutton 19:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That edit was NOT part of the content dispute the article was protected for. It did however remove unsourced information, so the edit was fair game. — Edokter (talk) — 10:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No edit, especially controversial edits, are fair game. That is a clear distortion of the policy.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Removing unsourced information is never controversial. And again, that edit was unrelated to the content dispute. This is not the proper venue to discuss individual edits. — Edokter (talk) — 11:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Removing unsourced information can be massively controversial. There can be great controversy over whether or not something is unsourced - and even if it is (at the moment), that doesn't mean that removing it straight away is the right thing to do. (Particularly since protection means that most editors are not able to add either citations, or citation neededs.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
          • If the information is uncited, is is unsourced. There can be no controversy over that. If an editor has a source, all that is needed is to post it on the talk page. — Edokter (talk) — 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
            • • So you think that any admin is in order if he just turns up at any protected page and removes any or all statements that don't have citations next to them?? Utterly absurd - most articles contain many such statements, and they're normally there because no-one seriously doubts that a source could be found if required. This kind of muddled thinking is the reason I don't "support Bwilkins interpretation", as many people have thoughtlessly written above - if we give admins explicit license to "remove policy-violating text", then they will take it on themselves to remove anything they personally disagree with, for one reason or another (it will either be uncited, or if it's cited, it will be "undue" or whatever). As we see, a few careless or dishonest admins do this already, but write it into the policy, and they will all start doing it, and we will indeed have created a superior caste of editors - the very thing that most of the people saying they "support Bwilkins" seem to want to avoid. Victor Yus (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • WP:FULL states fairly clearly Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Lacking such consensus, as documented by a talk page discussion, the edit should not have been made. NE Ent 19:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
              • The content dispute was about how to include John Hurt in the page, and that is why the page was protected. The admins concerned made edits that were about John Hurt, and so were about the content dispute. The edit should not have been done without prior discussion, and when the first admin undid his edit, a second one should never have changed it back. Undoing the first admin's revert was a controversial edit in itself, and it was sufficiently unimportant that it could have waited until it had been discussed.Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed changes. Most admins aren't idiots or woefully uninformed, and someone who's neither will be able to judge whether something is controversial or not. As was said above, if you get a complaint from someone because of your edit, you should self-revert, but we shouldn't use disagreements over "uncontroversial" to attempt to prevent admins from fixing spelling or incorrect coding. I'll guess that a decent number of admin edits through protection are through a much more profound misremembering of WP:PP; for example, when I was a new admin, I made a substantial edit to a protected article because I didn't remember that there was anything against it. Good-faith admins who misremember or have never read that part of WP:PP are going to continue making those substantial edits because they don't know better, and no policy change will prevent them from doing it or prevent you from reminding them that they shouldn't and asking for a self-reversion. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there isn't really such a thing as "that part of WP:PP". There are a few vague statements at a couple of points in the policy - the matter isn't properly addressed at all. Hence everyone just interprets things their own way, and since admins have the power, they end up effectively doing what they want. No matter whether they're misremembering, or just don't give a **** what anyone else may think. Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm disregarding Most admins aren't idiots or woefully uninformed given that rebutting the point could be classified as a personal attack. See Wikipedia:Civility enforcement. NE Ent 19:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposed changes. Whereas I agree that most admins are not idiots, the same can also be said about us, humble mortals. The only difference between an ordinary admin and an ordinary (non-admin) user is that the former has an access to some additional tools. However, when an admin starts to "shape an article", he immediately losses his admin status: admins can act as admins only when they are uninvolved (have no own opinion on the article's subject). In other words, an admin that edits some fully protected article is acting as an ordinary user, so they has no right to edit it. Exceptions are the changes that fix obvious violations of our core policy (I would include core content policies, NOR, V, and NPOV too). To that, I would add that in the case when some user has a reason to doubt the edit was uncontroversial (fits the proposed definition of uncontroversial edits), they have a right to appeal such "uncontroversial" change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But don't you see - "violations of our core policies" is such a slippery and inherently controversial concept that by allowing that as an excuse, you effectively are giving admins license to "shape the article". Victor Yus (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. If some user sees that the article says "A", but the source used for that statement says "not A", that fact is can be easily checked, simply by a comparison of the article's text with an extended quote from this source.

If someone sees the article contains a statement "A" (supported by the source X), but another reliable and mainstream source exists (Y) that says that the source X is wrong, that also can be easily checked and fixed (simply by removal of the disputed statement X).

Of course, I am not talking about less obvious cases, when sources allow different interpretation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I might agree in your first scenario, but in the second one it sounds far from obvious what ought to be done (probably both views ought to be mentioned). However, the whole matter of interpretation of sources and deciding how reliable they are can be extremely vexed, and will often be at the root of the conflict that got the page protected. Allowing admins to rule unilaterally on such matters (even if they think the answer "obvious") would be giving them the kind of power that most people in this thread seem to feel they should not have. Victor Yus (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Own userspace pages protection policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Exactly under what circumstances should userspace pages get protected? And should admins be allowed to fully-protect their own user pages just because they don't want other users to edit them? smtchahal^talk 01:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The protection policy regarding protection of userspace pages has been rather vague. Some admins protect userspace pages merely because they feel it is welcoming to new users, while others do not unless there has been a history of vandalism by anon. users or "other good reason". What exactly can be said to be that "good reason"? There only has been one example of it, i.e., having the userpage of a retired user protected (fully protected in case of a confirmed death of a Wikipedian, but not the talk page, I know). But, talking about active Wikipedians, user pages get protected by some admins for not really a "good reason" while others don't do it "pre-emptively". This all began on Bishonen's talk page (who declined my user page indefinite semi-protection request only a few days after another admin had protected a user's sandbox page, which had never been edited by anyone other than its user), escalated to WP:AN and when I felt even that wasn't working, I decided to post this RfC.

Also, we need to clear up when admins can protect their own user pages, and upto which level. User:Edgar181, an admin, full-protected his user page right after he created it. But of course, I can't say he did it for no good reason, because that user page has been deleted by himself several times, and there may have been a history of vandalism by auto-confirmed users, but being a non-admin, I cannot tell. smtchahal^talk 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion — I'd like to see the policy explicitly permit the protection of any userspage page at whatever level desired for whatever duration desired (as long as there's an unprotected user talk page, of course), since it's bad form to edit someone else's userspace if they don't want it. The whole point of the bit about "pages aren't protected preëmptively" is that we want articles to be available for everyone; the editing of userpages really isn't related to the philosophical basis upon which we permit editing of all problem-free articles. Of course admins should have the discretion to say "No, I don't think you're making this request in good faith", and problematic things in userspace should be removed by anyone with the rights to edit those pages (including an unprotection if necessary), but protection of userspace by request of the user is a basic courtesy with no downsides in almost all cases. That's why some of us already extend that courtesy in almost all cases, and that's why the policy should be changed to permit it explicitly in the face of questions about what the current wording means. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Being an admin, on what basis would you check whether a request for protection was made in good faith or not? Also, I don't think user pages should be allowed to be protected liberally like that, because consider the case when an admin, who displays a few userboxes on their user page, protects his user page fully. Now various bots and users, who migrate the transclusions of userboxes as they get moved, will not be able to do it and the users (not the bots, of course) will need to request the admin to do it himself who probably won't want to be bothered. This was just one of the reasons why I don't think user pages should be fully-protected without a "good reason", but of course, we need to decide what we mean by that phrase here. smtchahal^talk 02:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "I know it when I see it". Can't give you a hard-and-fast rule, but I'm envisioning a situation in which the requesting user is already in conflict that's related to the userpage, or when I look at the userpage and notice that it has questionable content. Basically, I'm willing to protect any time that I don't see evidence of problems; I see that as being compatible with the current wording and would like to see the current wording clarified in that way. Full protection is an issue, I admit — I'd ask users to explain why full protection was necessary, since they couldn't edit anything like that; my primary concern is the administrative time occupied by a user who wants to edit a fully-protected page, since a single unmoved userbox isn't a big problem. I'd pretty much automatically suggest the JS trick to someone requesting indefinite full protection; this is where you put your userbox code into a .js page (since only admins can edit other people's JS pages) and make your userpage nothing but a transclusion of the JS page. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Support on-demand SPP for userpages - I would not oppose automatic SPP for all userpages. The only valid reason for an editor to modify another editor's userpage is to remove generally prohibited material (spam, attacks, etc.), and I do not think restricting such clean-up tasks to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors will lead to problems. This would have the added benefit of preventing users from only ever editing their userpage and using it for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia. For this reason, I am strongly in favor of honoring requests to SPP a user's userpage for any reason. Note that my comments applies only to SPP, not FPP, and only to user pages, not user talk pages. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with you. I think it safe to assume that since non-auto-confirmed users do not perform maintenance tasks on user pages (like userbox migration, as I already mentioned; or perhaps more importantly, removing prohibited content as you mentioned), they cannot prove to be of much help to them in any other ways, either. Besides, the whole concept of Wikipedia's motto "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" only implies that the encyclopedic part (or rather most of it) can be edited by anyone, including anon. users, and user pages are clearly not a part of it. So if a user requests the semi-protection of their user pages, I fail to see why their request should be denied. Of course I'm also not talking about user talk pages; anyone should be able to communicate with with the user, including anon. users (unless a consensus decides that talk page should get protected; an excessively vandalised talk page archive is an example). Why user pages should not be protected fully without a "good reason" (I know I'm using this phrase way too much) I think I have already remarked in my reply to Nyttend. smtchahal^talk 02:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. There are plenty of reasons to edit another users userpage that isn't reverting vandalism. You might be fixing a template, enacting a UCFD, or whatever. See also Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages. Legoktm (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you reasonably believe that a non-negligible part of these template fixes, UCFD enactments, or whatever, is performed by non-(auto)confirmed editors? And that restricting the edits only to (auto)confirmed editors would result in problems? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per meta:Founding principles, taken as a whole, there should be as few differences between unregistered/autoconfirmed/admin as possible. I have no right to edit user's pages under most circumstances, nor do IPs or admins. There should not be technical differences between us. Whenever I go to a fully protected the View source in place of the usual welcoming edit this page immediately pops as a "you're untrustworthy!" message, even if I have no intention of editing the page. NE Ent 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably you have not noticed, but there are (apparently) many more "differences" between admins and non-admins than between any other two user groups. Besides, the only meta principle that seems relevant here is the second one: "The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration." Articles – the pages in the article-space, not necessarily all other pages as well. Just like some templates are cascade-protected from editing by anyone but admins (and it is reasonable; a single edit to those templates, even though made in good faith, could disrupt thousands of Wikipedia articles, which is why a very few users called "administrators" are trusted with it), a user should have the full right to get their userspace pages protected if they feel that IP users will not help them edit their user pages (and as I mentioned, unregistered users, not performing maintenance or anything, cannot be helpful in improving user pages of others; and why would they be interested in messing with other users' business, anyway? They will be told to create an account if they want a user page for themselves, if their edit to the user pages is reverted. And in case an unregistered user finds something offensive, like using images from the bad-image list that he/she doesn't want to see on the user page (that other users have failed to notice), the anon. can request the user to remove it or ask for help from some other user; think about it, it's not that hard). And anyway, how big deal is becoming an auto-confirmed user? All it takes is 10 edits and 4 days, and because the requirements for becoming an autoconfirmed user are not at all high, some articles occasionally encounter vandalism by autoconfirmed users, too. So it's not really a "you're untrustworthy!" message on a semi-protected page; it only says "create an account, make 10 edits, wait for just 4 days and you will become special enough to edit this" in my opinion. And I'm not even saving user pages should be semi-protected by default. If a user does not want their user pages protected, fine. But at least users should have this right; it's absolutely reasonable and not very clearly against any of the Founding principles. smtchahal^talk 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong liberal support, including full protection for admins. Nyttend and Salvidrin stole my reasons. In addition, if admins can be trusted enough to be admins, they can be trusted enough not to post policy-violating content onto their userspace. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I support semi-protection of any page in user and user talk space on request, except the user talk page, subject to the current provisions, ie there is vandalism and a talk page for 'IP and unconfirmed users'. This allows any page to be semi-protected, including talk page archives. However I think it's important to ensure that admins still have the discretion to decline requests if they believe the request in made in bad faith, as long as they have a reason to support their theory (that is: no, due to xyz I don't believe you're asking in good faith or you have a history of userspace misuse). I would also support full protection on request for unused talk archives (that is, they don't need to be edited by bots or the user to do the archiving), subject to the admin discretion I mentioned above. On the question of admins fully protecting their userspace pages, I don't have an issue with this, since a similar option is still available to non-admins (by transcluding a .js or .css page onto the userpage), however I strongly believe that it would be better to semi it so that maintenance (as User:Smtchahal indicates above can still be done), however I don't believe that full protection should be prohibited by policy (but I would support adding a suggestion as I have done).

Another question we should address is whether admins should be able to protect pages in their own userspace, and I think this depends on what the policy is. At the moment I don't believe they should be, because it requires an objective opinion in an area in which the admin has a conflict of interest (however I think it's fair to AGF on the part of the admin). If the policy is changed to reflect the above then this is no longer an issue and so there is no issue with admins protecting pages in their own userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support Just about all the SPI clerks and admins dealing with trolls like Grawp need to be able to defend their userspace against these determined trolls, since blocking is rarely effective with them. --Rschen7754 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I honestly think it should be a case by case thing. For certain users who have been targeted by LTAs in the past, it makes sense to semi the entire userspace even if not all individual pages were hit. On the flip side, you don't own your userspace, and unless there is a good reason to prevent new users/IPs from editing it I would decline a protection request. Legoktm (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, no one owns anything they post to Wikipedia (with very few exceptions). But that only means that what I put on my user page can be used by anyone else without permission (like I admittedly copied Mkdw's user page header) and I cannot do anything about it, not that one is also allowed to mess around with my stuff. One may alter it and post it somewhere else, but shouldn't mess with my user page itself. While you're reasonable in saying you would look for IP vandalism before semi-protecting a user page, I fail to see how a non-autoconfirmed user could prove to be helpful by editing someone else's user page. smtchahal^talk 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support protection on demand for user pages. It's relatively rare for someone to have good cause to edit another's user page, and more rare for a non-autoconfirmed user to correctly identify such a case. Arbitrary protection has less potential for abuse than arbitrary deletion and we allow CSD-U1 in own user space. Kilopi (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• A weak oppose is what I am tending to here, because the protection of a userpage should be a reaction to something, not to prevent something which has not happened yet (as in articles, actually). I fear a little bit if we preemptively protect userpages, after some time there will be a push in the direction of preemptively protecting articles too, as we have now such a good precedent for doing it ("It's working fine with userpages, there is no harm..."). This, at least imho, is what Wikipedia is about: the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, and shutting off more and more pages (yes, even userpages) is going against this spirit, so it leaves a bit of a dull feeling inside me, let me call it a hunch that this going the wrong way. Lectonar (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I'm also in support of protecting as less articles as possible, but I'm only worried about mainspace articles (not counting any talk pages). I don't think this proposal should by any means support pre-emptively protecting mainspace articles as well, because I'm sure that even if such a proposal is made, the majority of users will oppose it for obvious reasons. And for "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit" part: think about it from a new user's point of view, who is likely to encounter the main page before anything else. The user will likely be interested in editing the mainspace articles alone (inspired by the today's featured article which, they might be glad to know, can (likely) be edited by them). Speaking of that, I don't know why or how protecting user pages (even upto any level) should go against the you-can-edit-this-encyclopedia spirit. smtchahal^talk 03:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, userpages are part of the wiki, aren't they? And for me, as a bit of a gnomish type, I correct typos and the like even on userpages. Lectonar (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, user pages are a part of the wiki, not the encyclopedia. The cascade-protected templates are also a part of the wiki; in fact, in a way a part of the encyclopedia as well, because some of those templates are displayed in mainspace articles (while user pages are never). Well, that's nice of you if you do it, but you are an auto-confirmed user, aren't you (you're even an administrator, which means you can edit fully protected user pages, too; though I'm not in favour of getting user pages fully-protected on demand as well)? Do you really think a non-negligible (I'm copying words, I know) number of non-(auto)confirmed users also correct typos and stuff on user pages, and that blocking their access from doing so will affect Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? I'm still where I was; semi-protecting user pages (on demand) does not affect the "you-can-edit-this-encyclopedia" spirit because user pages are never a part of the encyclopedia (only of the Wikipedia community, maybe) unless on rare occasions, when the user creates an article that they plan to submit to the mainspace later on in their userspace (in which case an administrator can simply decline the request). smtchahal^talk 05:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think on the whole it makes a difference, because it changes the atmospheric conditions for editing as a whole; ideally, we wouldn't even need userpages, so the whole thing would be moot anyway. Let me also add that I find you responding to almost every comment made by an opposer somewhat unnecessary, as I am sure all people contributing here have read and even understood the puprose of this endeavour. If policy will be changed, I will abide by the new policy; this does not mean I have to like it. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support on-demand SPP for userpages. Per Salvidrim. If someone plans on working on new pages patrol or other areas where it is expected that their userpage will get vandalized, then they should be able to preemptively protect themselves (userpage and talkpage) from personal attacks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did recent changes patrol until I figured out I'd be be as fast as the bots and/or my fellow pratrollers, and did NPP until some admin ranted on my user talk page about wasting their time with an improper CSD ... never had any vandalism. NE Ent 20:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose protection of userspace where there is no reason for protection. This is a wiki, and pages in an editor's userpsace belong to the community, not to that editor. While it's generally considered impolite to edit somebody else's userspace, it's not prohibited and there occasionally legitimate reasons to do so. Where there is vandalism, reason to believe there will be vandalism, or some other reason for protection (eg lists of alternate accounts or redirects which need to retained in a particular version), then protection should be granted and this is already the practice at RfPP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you bother to read Salvidrim's reply to Legoktm above? smtchahal^talk 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I didn't; I have now, and I don't think it's relevant. Besides which, it misses (or perhaps you are missing) my point: this is a wiki. IPs, autoconfirmed accounts, and admins are all (or should all be) equal and none has any more nor any less right to edit a given page than any other, except where such restrictions are necessary. Protection is the exception, not the rule. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • So your only oppose rationale is that this is a wiki and anyone should be able to edit it, right? Even though it's for no good reasons. And that reply is relevant: can you explain what "legitimate reasons" non-(auto)confirmed users can occasionally have to edit others' user pages? smtchahal^talk 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• I also oppose routine pre-emptive protection, as this is a wiki and the default is to allow unregistered editors to improve pages and remove problematic content. See also my comments here. Problems arise when RFPP gets backlogged by 1001 requests for protection of silly user sub-sub pages, usually of users with a picture of a policeman on their main userpage, resulting in more work for overworked admins and a consequent lack of admin time and attention to stop the actual vandalism. That said, sure we can be liberal with protection where problems can be properly anticipated, and this is generally indicated by a history of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is why I just blindly protect user (sub)pages by request regardless of reason (excepting talk page). It is faster and I've yet to see it cause a problem. No determination or history to worry about. If a consensus of us decide that your user page should have 100 picture of ponies and use pink text, who should decide the content, the community or you? Realistically, we do grant the user a limited ownership of their pages here, as long as it doesn't violate policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Of course there are reasons for user pages to be protected, but why on Earth would we allow them to be preemptively protected? Yes, major vandal/sock-fighting editors will get their pages attacked, at which point (indefinite, even) semi-protection is quite valid. This is the status quo, yes? I see no reason to change policy because some users want control over their webpage. Most user space requests I've seen are relatively new editors asking for some (sub)page to be protected "because it could be a major major target" or something before any vandalism has occurred. If an actual article about an actual person that actual readers will actually see needs multiple instances of repeated vandalism to get temporary semi-protection, why should all user pages be more important? Also, full protection is completely excessive unless there's a @#!*% good reason (crazy-popular template, cascade or something, prevent easy dumb BEANS mistakes, I dunno); any autoconfirmed editors making trouble on userpages should be dealt with directly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes; while there may not be any reasons to protect user pages pre-emptively, I don't see a harm in doing it, either. Besides, the reason I posted this RfC was that I wanted a firmer policy regarding protection of user pages, because some administrators (as some have declared here) do not hesitate in protecting user pages pre-emptively if the request was made in good faith, while others don't protect user pages unless there's a history of considerable amount of vandalism by IPs/new users. I'm not asking to strictly adhere to the policy (as someone mentioned on WP:AN, pointing out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy), but I think an administrator should be able to correctly justify why he/she denied someone's pre-emptive user page semi-protection request when another administrator had accepted some other user's (again, pre-emptive) user page semi-protection request (as has happened with me, I admit) or otherwise, no administrators should be allowed to protect user pages pre-emptively at all, which would obviously need a firmer policy, in my opinion. If administrators accept or deny these requests based on their own opinions rather than even caring about policy (which, in this case, is apparently weak), it will surely frustrate some users. And oh, I've always been talking about protecting user pages, not user talk pages as well. User talk pages should be protected on the same basis as they currently are because everyone (including non-(auto)confirmed users) usually should be able to communicate with any Wikipedian. smtchahal^talk 01:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I know, and I thank you for it. Just the other day, I declined an RFPP request by a very new user wanting to protect his/her status page because it would be a hugely valuable target for vandalism. I then watched other such subpages of that user get preemptively protected soon-after by another sysop. There needs to be a firm policy, I agree, I just happen to think that our current policy as applies to actual articles is sufficient for user pages. Talk, of course, we agree on, there's no qualm there from anyone here (I hope) but for user pages I just don't see the need. This isn't myspace, it isn't a webhosting service, and why should my little egotistical creation be subject to my own whims any more than the subject of a BLP feels about the article on themself? We don't let BLPs dictate the protection of content we care about, why let users dictate protection of content that is far less targeted? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have mixed feelings about this. A users talk page should never be protected, in the case of people doing anti-vandalism, you occasionally revert the wrong edits, and IPs should be able to notify you. A users main talk page could be given semi on request, and I have no problem with admins fully protecting their own. Draft articles should not be protected unless there is a specific need, on the same level as articles in main space.Martin451 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Policy is blank on this issue, but if a user wants any page in their area except their talk page full protected or semi-protected, I generally just do it. I've only had to semi-protect my own user page once, but I protect my own pages that have user reviews or templates, so other users should be able to do the same thing without begging or justifying it. While no one "owns" their user page, we treat it as if they do within limits. IE: We can't come in as a consensus and change your user page if it isn't violating policy, as an editorial decision. The talk page is a bit of an exception for obvious reasons, but I have no problem protecting any other page at whatever level they want, for whatever reason they want it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support allowing users to request semi-protection of user pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Following Nyttend and others. I would also add that it should save valuable administrative time since admins need not invest the time to verify whether there are good reasons for a protection request.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support allowing semi-protection of userpages on request with no prior history of disruption. Valid reasons to edit someone else's userpage are limited to formatting fixes/other cleanup and removing inappropriate material prohibited by WP:USER, semi-protection is unlikely to interfere with either, as this work is done by experienced editors. Arguments about openness don't receive nearly as much weight outside of pages that are part of the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 21:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support allowing users to request semi-protection of user pages. However, a step in this direction must be limited to user pages, limited to clearly defined cases, and not be allowed to extend to any other common pages in order to avoid "protection-creep". In the case of vandalism, pro-active action with respect to the editor or IP is better than reactive action that protects the page, as it creates a scenario in which malfeasance by a single individual leads to the creation of a barrier for the entire community. Jaytwist (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any big problem with this.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support We're talking about user pages here, not user talk pages. There are very few valid reasons for someone to edit another person's user page, especially if that person doesn't want their user page edited by other people. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. In fact, I'm under the strong impression that all userpages should be automatically semi-protected when they are created, because there's no excuse for a brand-new user or IP going there and vandalizing it (or even posting anything there at all). It also helps prevent Wikihounding by blocked users, the likes we've seen on User:Hijiri88's userpage, for example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think User:Jimbo Wales would want that (implementation of default protection of user pages) to happen, though ("You can edit this page! Really, you can! If you would like to, please feel free to do so. Make an edit! Make several edits! Make lots of edits! After all, that is what Wikipedia is all about."). I don't say I would, either. smtchahal^talk 07:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You do realize that would prevent new users from editing their own new user pages, right? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes I do, but was that really supposed to be a reply to my comment (as it looked, from how you indented it)? smtchahal^talk 04:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - If there's vandalism, then protect the page and/or block the vandals. Otherwise, I tend to see people requesting protection for their userpages, subpages, and sub-sub-sub-subpages when they clearly don't need it. There are very few users who actually revert enough vandalism to warrant userpage semiprotection, and even fewer need semiprotection of the entire userspace. This vote is pretty much per Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  The question is, is there any harm done by such semi-protection? After all, few anons or newcomers have any legitimate reason to edit an other user's userspace, except their main talk page; and if we allow such a blanket permission, then it will take up only a minimal amount of adminsitrator time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support - I think that all page in the userspace should be semi-protected on request of the user, and may be fully protected by the user if (s)he's an adminstrator, unless they fall into any of the following categories:
  1. They are intended primarily for communication with the user (including the user's main talk page) or about a page in the user's userspace
  2. They are intended for use outside the user's own userspace, other than by substitution by the user
  עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - why not? If a user wants their page protected, and there's an admin willing to spend the couple of seconds it takes to protecting it, where's the harm? If (for example) I'm going on holiday and want to leave a message letting people know, and don't want to allow my message to be replaced by one from a vandal, isn't it perfectly legitimate to ask for this to be done? I doubt many people would bother, but if they do, is there really any point in arguing with them (or "declining" them with the air of an arrogant bureaucrat)? Victor Yus (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Victor Yus. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support. This could be abused, potentially increasing moderator workload. However, there are also potential benefits through avoiding vandalism. I'd say that semi-protection should only be given to users whose pages are frequently vandalized or to user pages that contain potentially vital information (ex. certain Admin userpages, the userpages for bots). However, if adopted semi protection should only be given through an application reviewed by administrators for need and/or utility. If semi-protection is given out willy-nilly by request, everyone who knows about this will request it, in effect turning making all-user pages semi-protected. Marechal Ney (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. Allowing pages to be protected for no reason other than "because my other page was protected" or "because my page might be vandalised" (both reasons I've seen given) is of absolutely zero benefit to the project. It achieves nothing positive whatsoever, all this would do is invite even more hat-collectors to waste even more time at WP:RFPP. I have seen far too many requests for protection at RFPP that are cases where were the page an article nobody in their right mind would even consider protection, more often that not it's users wanting to add another shiny icon to the top-right of their userpage, something we should be discouraging rather than supporting as this proposal is doing--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly: Hat-collection is only about user rights; getting one's user page protected does not give the user a special power or anything (while additional user rights cannot be trusted to everyone for apparent reasons) so even if people who request user rights for mere hat collection do request their user pages to get protected, it would, in my opinion, a be a rather better idea to fulfil this request (as long as the request was made in good faith and admins can identify it) as doing so will most likely avoid actual hat-collection (of user rights); they might just think that now their user page has been protected, they've become something special (even though everyone else knows they've not) and that they don't need additional user rights anymore. Yes, I agree that perhaps users will start making more and more user page protection requests (although I guess the users in "their right mind" still won't do it), and it might increase the 'workload' of admins at WP:RFPP (even though most of them don't seem to mind it; many of them still protect user pages on demand, usually without even questioning anything); but if this proposal was not to result in any net positive, it's not causing any harm either; in which case, it does seem to achieve the positive goal of avoiding (or at least delaying) hat-collection of user rights by simply making some users 'happy'. smtchahal^talk 07:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You're wrong there, hat collection is not just about user rights, it's about editors who try to collect something that the majority of users do not have. Allowing users to request protection for their userpage, talk archives and every random subpage they happen to make (something that has happened on more than one occasion) does not benefit the project, it makes more work for admins. This proposal is a net-negative, pure and simple--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Someone needs to change the WP:HATSHOP essay, then. "Hat collecting is the process of gaining rights on Wikipedia just to show off or to boost one's ego, rather than because you have any actual use for them." I'm sure having one's user page protected is not the same as (or even close to) gaining rights, is it? Because if your user page gets semi-protected, you're not the only one who can edit it; you don't have an 'exclusive' right over it. Again, it just gives them a reason to be 'happy' and (hopefully) can avoid actual hat-collection as well; which is ultimately for the benefit of the project as it does not seem to upset many admins by increasing their WP:RFPP 'workload' (a few other admins here who even opposed didn't say they would mind more work at WP:RFPP). smtchahal^talk 02:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That essay of one persons essay, the mindset of a hat-collector is pretty obvious, and I can assure you I have seen many users requesting protection for the sake of another shiny hat. The simple fact is that this has zero benefit to the project, you can say it will make some users happy but to that I say that if a user is unhappy because their page is not protected when it doesn't need it then a) they are clearly collecting hats and b) don't belong on Wikipedia--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • No, that essay constitutes the opinion of more than just one person and has been widely agreed upon by various others (even admins). Of course, essays are not policies; they're just opinions of individual Wikipedians and you are entitled to your own, but are you sure that all pre-emptive requests of semi-protection of own user pages constitute your definition of hat-collection? Is it really that safe to assume that even if a user who has gained a good reputation in the Wikipedia community makes a pre-emptive protection request of their user pages just for the sake of hat-collection (per your definition, again)? I think Victor Yus makes a good point here by giving one good reason why pre-emptive user protection is sometimes needed. Besides, even if requests are made to get the main user page protected, there's no harm in doing it (and again, not many admins seem to mind the few more seconds they'd have to spend in case the number of user page semi-protection requests increases as many of them do it already), either. In case an obvious hat-collector, who has just begun on Wikipedia (barely autoconfirmed, for example) requests all of his user pages to get protected, an admin can protect their user page alone and can question why they'd want the other user space pages to get protected. For example: I would not want all my user pages to get protected, with the exception of my user page and maybe also the page I transclude to my talk page for its design (so it doesn't flood my actual talk page and new users mostly can't figure out how it works). I wouldn't want my userboxes, userboxes page and of course my talk page semi-protected (unless the userboxes get a bit popular) because I don't see why new users/IPs would want to disrupt me with that; I'd not request pre-emptive protection for those pages (and not at all for my talk page, of course, unless an admin decides to protect it temporarily in case of really heavy vandalism). Hence, if an admin is any good, they'd be good enough to be able to tell hat-collection apart. I really think an admin shouldn't hesitate in protecting the main user page of a user upon request at all (unless in a few cases, like when a non-autoconfirmed user requests protection or the request was made in "bad faith"). I do agree that hat-collectors (per your definition, again) would want all of their user pages protected and I'd say it wouldn't be wrong to deny all requests other than that of the main user page which, although doesn't belong to the user, usually shouldn't be edited by anyone other than the user him/herself unless for maintenance purposes; something, it would be safe to assume, non-autoconfirmed users never do. smtchahal^talk 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course not all requests are, the large majority however are done for no reason, and with no benefit to the project. Nothing you or anybody else has said is a reason why this change should be made to policy. The simple fact is that allowing people to request protection where protection is not needed, for example I consider the protection of your userpage to be needless, is of no benefit to the project. The question is simple, why did you want your page protected? It clearly wasn't because you were a target for vandalism, or because it was being changed without your consent, so why was it. Or will you just give the vague reason so many do "Because I don't want IP's editing my userpage", despite absolutely zero indication that any ever will --Jac16888 ^Talk 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
              • "The large majority however are done for no reason". We don't need a reason for preventing IP users from editing user pages; not because it ever will happen, but because if it does, it would be "with no benefit to the project". I wanted my user page for the same reason I proposed here; because there is no reason why a non-(auto)confirmed user would want to edit my user page or why doing so will be helpful to anyone (or the project). "The simple fact" is also that allowing non-(auto)confirmed users to edit other people's user pages (or user pages at all, in case of anon. users) is also of no benefit to the project, is it?
                • You're advocating a change that goes against the principle of Wikipedia in order to prevent something that is not actually an issue, you say you don't want IP/New users editing your userpage, well you're in luck because none ever had, and taking an example from another user down the page when they do it's not always a bad thing. I could carry a gun in my car in case I'm attacked by wolves or bears, after all other people do so clearly it's a possibility right? Of course I do live in an English village as opposed to Northern Canada--Jac16888 ^Talk 09:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • I wouldn't have counted on (or even used) that diff for opposing this proposal if I were you. I don't want a few grammatical corrections at the cost of vandalism (which is inevitable in case of some vandalism-fighters; mostly the ones with nicely decorated user pages; but yes, my user page never got vandalised: I guess my user page was never that good). Besides, the exact reason I proposed this RfC was to ensure that administrators do follow the policy (while still using common sense and all that) even when it comes to protecting userspace pages. Seriously; protecting that sandbox I mentioned in the proposal description was by no means in accordance with the current policy. But I re-considered it; maybe there was some "good reason" to protect it, but I don't yet know if there was. That's when I thought there needs to be a consensus on this. If this RfC does go in your opinion's favour, I wouldn't mind at all (even unprotect my user page right now if that's something that's bothering you, and I'm not even kidding; I didn't post this RfC merely to get my user page protected, I wouldn't have been arguing so much otherwise), but if it does, I'd expect a series of actions to happen: WP:UPROT should be more specific about those "other good reasons"; an example or two isn't enough. All userspace pages indefinitely protected pre-emptively (without a history of considerable vandalism in the past at all) must get unprotected (an admin could begin here, maybe), including admins' userspace pages (excluding highly visible userboxes and user templates and stuff, of course). That "User request within own userspace" pre-loaded reason should be replaced by the regular, "Persistant vandalism" one (because if the only reason for protecting the user page was vandalism, "User request within own userspace" doesn't make any sense and only implies that the page was protected on demand). Did it never occur to you that some admins do protect user pages pre-emptively while others don't? Did you never bother to do anything about it yourself? You've been an admin for quite a while, and I'm sure you must have encountered situations like those. Just asking. smtchahal^talk 10:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • The fact that editor went on to become a vandal does not make that edit a bad one, it still proves my point. You continue to argue and yet you have yet to actually give a reason for why this is needed. Yes, some admins do protected userpages on request, yes I disagree with that and most importantly of all I disagree with the notion that any user can go to WP:RFPP and say "I want my page requested, do it" and expect it to be done - this is just inviting disaster. I have not seen a single point you have made that convinces me this change should be made and I don't expect you to make one--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The mere fact that a non(auto)confirmed user ever proved to be helpful by editing another's user page does not really prove your point. That was an extremely rare case, and blocking their access from editing others' user pages will not cause any harm. You disagree with that "protect my user page, please" notion – fine, but also be informed that not every admin does – in fact, a considerable number of them don't. Also, non(auto)confirmed users hardly ever do something for the benefit of the project by editing others' user pages, and you know it. That diff didn't prove your point, and I don't expect you to convince me into believing that allowing non(auto)confirmed users to edit user pages can really prove to be any good, either. smtchahal^talk 11:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I should clarify, since you seem not to grasp my point here. You claim that you should be able to request protection of your userpage and it be granted without due cause, so as to prevent the possibility of IP/new users editing it. I dispute that as an argument on 3 points. 1) That new/ip users editing user pages is anything like a common enough occurrence to warrant such a change - in the last 500 edits to the userspace I found exactly one edit, more of a test than anything. 2) That said edits when they do (rarely) occur are actually a bad thing - as I've already pointed out that is not always the case. 3) That IP/new users editing your userpage at all is actually a bad thing. There are many experienced editors out there who are well aware that a test/vandalism edit to your userpage is infinitely better than those edits being made to the pages that actually matter - the articles. Hell, I've known sockpuppeters that create accounts and vandalise my page on the first edit and bam, instant block - in fact there are even some editors who actively people people to edit their userpage. Your userpage is not in fact yours it belongs to the project, if you stopped looking it at as some sacred possesion to be zealously protected and focused on editing more you would be surprised at how little it matters.--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • To the first point: I smell irony in that. If IPs/new users hardly ever edit user pages and a user wants to block their editing access to their user pages completely, what's the harm in it? To the second one: If you have (recently) conducted a survey to determine the percentage of edits by new users/IPs that are actually constructive, please present its result here. To the third one: What if I don't want a history of reverting and edits by IPs at all? Besides, some users can find it disturbing and would want those edits RevDeleted (even though administrators can't do it as content is not that disruptive). Yes, one shouldn't care about what happens to one's user page; that's very encouraging to the user, isn't it? The fact is, because your user page doesn't matter, (semi-)protecting it shouldn't matter, either. For those editors who let people edit their user pages; come on, let them! I'm not asking to get user pages protected by default, am I? And no; user page is not as unimportant to everyone as it is to you. Seriously. We say your user page does not belong to you; but then, we protect user pages based on the reason "User request within own userspace". I seriously think you have misinterpreted what "not owning your userspace" means. It only means that everything you submit to Wikipedia (anywhere at all) by clicking "Save page", you release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. That only means that another user can copy some (or even all) information from your user page and might change it and post it somewhere else, without having to take your consent. But that doesn't allow them to mess with your user page itself (unless on those rare occasions of userbox migration, maintenance, removing objectionable content, etc. that new users/IPs do not perform). smtchahal^talk 05:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • You could also make the claim that if most people won't use rollback abusively we could just give it to everybody right? No survey, I clicked recent changes (I did this a few times), selected last 500 edits and selected the userspace - the results were a staggering lack of unwanted userspace edits, you're welcome to try it yourself. You keep using the fact it is one of the default drop-down options, you do realise that is irrelevant, as shown by the fact I just changed it to match current policy. If you're so concerned about your userpage I find that concerning myself, and it is you who has a staggering mis-interpretation of WP:OWNership, what it actually means is that your userpage is not in fact yours, you do not own it or have authority over it, like any other page on the project it should be used for the improvement of Wikipedia--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, user rights are different. You need to show that you do need them and your contributions should be able to convince the reviewing administrator that you will also not use them abusively. Where user pages are concerned, it doesn't really matter if they get semi-protected pre-emptively (there are exceptions; read on). Why? Because it doesn't matter if new users/IPs are unable to edit them (exceptions, remember). Now why's that? Because they hardly ever edit for the "benefit" of the project (exceptions, again). I tried that recent changes thing out myself, and apart from editing articles that the user was probably planning to submit to the mainspace later (currently in one of their user subpages or sandbox, the pre-emptive semi-protection request of which should be declined; now this is one of those exceptions), IP users never made any desirable edits, either. It seemed that sometimes, IP users were in fact editing their own user page after they had logged out and forgotten to log in (in which case, the user is usually not auto(confirmed), and we don't expect them to make semi-protection request of their user page; their requests can simply be declined and they can be informed about it even if they do; as long as administrators are not too lazy because I don't think new users would know about protection at all). And again; I'm not asking to get user pages protected by default. And like I've said already, administrators can decline semi-protection requests at their discretion in case new and IP users might need to edit those pages for the betterment of the project; like a potential mainspace article currently in userspace. And no; you've still not made any improvement in that dropdown list option. It still seems to imply that user pages are owned by users. Yeah, it is so easy to say that your user page "should be used for the improvement of Wikipedia". But can you please explain exactly how blocking access of new/IP users to editing user pages (on demand) can possibly obstruct the improvement of Wikipedia (with exceptions, again)? And by saying that about user pages, do you mean anyone other than myself can add information about me (false or not); regarding how I use Wikipedia, what views I have and all that even though it's all false? You seem confused; you're saying user pages should be used for the improvement of Wikipedia, but how on earth is not allowing non-(auto)confirmed users going to change that (potential mainspace article in userspace is, again, an exception and in all such exceptions, administrators should simply decline the protection request)? Of course, I don't have any authority on my user page; one copyright violation and that gets reverted and RevDeleted (simply deleted in case there was nothing else in the page's history), I know (and that's just an example). I do understand what you mean here; other users can edit your user page if that helps improve Wikipedia, like in the case a userspace page is used as a potential namespace article (I'm sorry I don't have any other exception yet), as I already mentioned; in which case, again, the administrator should not protect the page, but do you really believe that editing the non-excepted user pages can, by any means, stop the improvement of Wikipedia? Like my user page, for example, currently serves no good to Wikipedia (or does it?). There's simply no point in believing that new users/IPs will make Wikipedia better by editing my user page. It was you who said user pages don't matter, so even if my user page does get significantly improved by a non-(auto)confirmed user, what good would it do to the project? smtchahal^talk 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
            • For a such a massive reply you've not actually said anything of value. Yes, if you ignore all the exception your proposal is fantastic - shame that in the real world you can't do that (I hear San Pedro Sula is the perfect place to live, with a few exceptions). In fact your reply is almost nonsensical - you're saying that protection is down to the reviewing admins discretion? How is that any different to now, user applies for needless protection and a) it gets protected inviting another person to make the same request and so on, b) it gets declined as pointless and they move on or c) it gets declined to they complain about it till it is protected. The only difference is that you're suggesting we invite even more people to make these pointless requests and add to a page which already gets backlogs regularly --Jac16888 ^Talk 14:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm not asking to ignore exceptions; I never did. And when I said administrators can decline requests "at their own discretion", I meant administrators must protect user pages on demand unless allowing IP/new users can prove to be of any benefit to the project (because that seems to be the only legitimate reason you don't want this proposal to pass); no matter how many other users it invites or how pointless it is. Do you have a reason to believe that a significant number of admins (other than yourself) will mind the (not very significantly) increased "work" at WP:RFPP? Because protecting mainspace articles that have been actually been subjected to vandalism, sockpuppetry etc. tests an administrator's ability. Protecting user pages, in my opinion, wouldn't take as much effort. smtchahal^talk 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Victor Yus. In fact, why not make all userpages un-editable by any other non-admin users, just like .js and .css pages? Some other wikis do this. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of reasons why all user pages must not be fully-protected from editing like .js and .css pages. For example: suppose a new user (even accidentally) puts up a lot of copyrighted stuff on their user pages that they and admins alone can edit. Now non-admins won't be able to tag the page for speedy deletion for being a copyright violation, which means admins will somehow have to know that a copyright violation took place. smtchahal^talk 01:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not unsolvable. For example, a centralized place could be set up for reporting such copyvios. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • There already is a centralised place for reporting copyvios here, but that category would become useless if user pages with copyright infringement got fully protected by default as non-admins (and it is usually their job to "report" them, after which the admin takes his/her decision) won't be able to report any such violations. smtchahal^talk 02:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support Seems like a sensible idea. If we are more liberal in semi-protecting user pages, anti-vandalism people can spend more time focussing on the stuff that matters: article-space. That said, I'm fine with the status quo too. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support The status quo is fine with me, but I find myself unconvinced by the arguments against this. (or I could have just said "ditto what Tom Morris said") EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• To everyone against pre-emptive user (space) pages protection: On what basis was this user page fully protected (and although it happened about two years ago, the relevant policy hasn't changed since then)? It's like the policy being proposed here already existed back then; though it, of course, didn't (see protection logs). And again, I don't know if there was indeed a history of vandalism by auto-confirmed users as the page once got deleted, so I'm not saying that was a completely wrong move (although if there was, either of the protecting administrators, in my opinion, must have mentioned it). Also; why do administrators (apparently) have a preloaded protection reason "User request within own userspace" rather than "Persistent vandalism" (which is the preloaded reason for semi-protection of any Wikipedia page) unless it's because users are allowed to get their user pages protected on demand? Because the latter reason seems appropriate for anything that's getting frequently vandalised by new users/IPs. smtchahal^talk 07:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My userpage did get vandalised back then, but autoconfirmed vandals were not much of a problem. I don't remember why I wanted my userpage to be full protected in the first place, so your question will have to stay unanswered. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support the protection of userpages per request by the "controller", because of the few legitimate occasions where one would edit someone else's userpage. This practice has not destroyed the wiki yet. →Σσς. (Sigma) 10:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I'd prefer we change counterproductive policies before they destroy the wiki. NE Ent 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• And is there a way of knowing if a policy is counterproductive, and that it will destroy the wiki? Besides, in what ways do you think could the wiki get "destroyed" by allowing all administrators to (at least semi-)protect user pages on demand, when (I keep stressing on this fact, I know) a considerable number of administrators do this already? smtchahal^talk 13:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• The founders and owners of this website have made the decision to allow anonymous editing; therefore the logical extension is that all categories of editors IP / autoconfirmed / admin should be treated the same as much as possible. Semi-protection is a necessary exception to that when there is ongoing vandalism because the cost / effort in reverting it outweighs the benefit of allowing anonymous editing; it is supposed to be applied for as short a time as possible. We can't predict the future but we know in the present the number of editors is going down and there a like a quarter million articles with {{unreferenced}} tags on them. It's my opinion that the way we treat IP editors is part of the problem; other editors feel that the way we allow socks to harass editors is a more significant problem. It's my position that every step made toward treating IPs exactly the same as autoconfirmed is good; every unnecessary step away from that is bad. Wikipedia asks editors to work for free; that that has worked so far does not mean it will work forever. I don't know if there is a tipping point or not, or how close we are to it. The Tipping Point (book) isn't as amazing as some fans think it is because it's of limited utility because tipping points can only be identified in the past, not the future. As wiki-philosophical debates go, this is a tough one, because the many supporters are entirely correct there are few pragmatic reasons any editor should be editing another user's talk page. Regardless of outcome, I'm actually surprised and pleased there are so many opposed. Consider this analogy -- what's more pleasant to live in, a residential neighborhood with open green lawns or a neighborhood with chain link fences and bars on the windows? I'm saying please don't put bars in the windows, not because I want someone to break your house, but because they're ugly. NE Ent 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment spoils a key element of Life of Pi so I'd suggest not reading it if you haven't seen the film yet NE Ent 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you've seen Life of Pi (film) -- I'd rather Wikipedia have the tiger Richard Parker than the cook. NE Ent 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree with most part of it that this proposal, if passed, could harm the purpose of this wiki (even though some administrators are doing it already; I just can't help mentioning it). That analogy, for example, was not a very good one. Why would a random IP user consider my user page as something analogous their neighbourhood? I've never encountered the case when a new user did something constructive by editing another's user page; the best I ever saw them do was leaving messages on the user page (though I know there are a lot more experienced Wikipedians in this discussion; they're all free to prove me wrong here as long as they have diffs). Even from new users'/anon. users' point of view: why would an IP user (or a registered one with fewer than 10 edits and less than 4 days of experience), in fact, mind not being able to edit another user's user page; why would a new/anon. user feel bad about it when they'd most likely be interested in editing the mainspace articles (likely about their favourite topics, for instance)? And no, I don't think it would be a tipping point because protecting user pages on demand has never been a "rare" practice in the recent past (that spans over at least a few years). This proposal should, at its worst, be able to decide if the practice should be completely forbidden and that violating administrators should be taken seriously. smtchahal^talk 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also, pages sometimes also get protected when there is no scope of improvement by the users restricted from editing. For example, Jimbo Wales (which redirects to Jimmy Wales) was fully-protected indefinitely in 2008 with the reason "no need to be edited". If that can happen, why can't user pages get semi-protected? Why is it unsafe to assume that IP/new users cannot improve user pages by any means (even though I'm not asking to get user pages protected by default)? smtchahal^talk 06:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, a lot of users would prefer their user pages protected before they get vandalised, right? smtchahal^talk 06:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I support the general principle that users should generally have control over their own user pages, especially the non-talk pages. I would expect admins to protect user pages on request from the user, provided that there is no good reason not to.

Regarding admins protecting their own pages I would suggest that they should only do this in circumstances in which they would be prepared to protect any user's pages on request. In other words admins should apply the same protection principles to their own pages as they would to others'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per all the above it just makes sense. Hot Stop 22:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Like the protection of your userpage for "Persistent vandalism" after one instance of vandalism makes sense? I would call that another needless protection--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose protect-by-request This is an encyclopedia based on open collaboration using a wiki that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and it is a waste of time to attempt a precise specification of the conditions under which a particular action should occur. I once went to a lot trouble to explain (via email) why the user page and talk page of a rather inactive user should be semiprotected indefinitely—that was done because there was a very good reason. However, that was a rare exception. A few disruptive changes to a user page do not warrant protection, although WP:RFPP is available for temporary protection of any page under attack. The comment above regarding how plenty of "hat collectors" would want their pages protected is correct, and discussing pointless things is distracting and a waste of time. Many admins get trolls seeking retribution because the admin prevented the occurrence of some nonsense, and an admin's user or talk pages often need protection. If some admins are doing such protection without good reason, that is just more evidence that admins are human, and life is not fair—it is not a reason that everyone's user page should be protected on request. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, you're someone who probably didn't go through the entire discussion. It is not a 'wiki' that anyone can edit, but is supposed to be The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Encyclopedia, not everything that comes along with it as well. Again, I don't think why allowing new users to edit another person's user page is something that we want in the first place; unless it's for "Hey, edit me!" message to anon. and new users, which does nothing more than promoting vandalism. Again; as I said, pages do get pre-emptively protected sometimes (like Jimbo Wales, which redirects to Jimmy Wales, has been protected just because there's "no need to edit" it; if that was correct, why do you think there is a need for unregistered/new users to edit other's user pages?), and if a user demands their main user page to get protected pre-emptively, I fail to see the harm in this (as long as administrators are willing to spend the few seconds it takes to protect them, and mind you, most of them are). And I don't think a non-active user would likely want their user page to get protected (and even if they do, there's, again, no harm in doing it, either). And yet again, if an admin is any good, they'd be good-enough to be able to tell "hat-collection" apart and deny requests in case they're absolutely unnecessary (like unnecessary protection of all own user space pages, for example). smtchahal^talk 04:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Generally we don't preemptively protect pages, but user pages are in fact an exception to WP:OWN and there is no reason I can see to decline to semi-protect a user page if that is what the user wants. Nothing is harmed by doing this, so why not? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This RFC came about because I declined to semiprotect Smtchahal's page, per policy, but I agree with changing the policy. As Nyttend says, there's not really any downside to semiprotection of userpages on request, and it's acknowledged to be rude and inappropriate to edit other people's pages anyway. I respect the ideological conviction of the people above who think it important to extend the principle "anybody can edit" to user's personal pages, but I don't share it. I'm a strong supporter of the traditional "wide latitude [offered] to users to manage their user space as they see fit", and would extend it to semi on request. Especially since admins can and occasionally do protect their own pages preemptively. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
• Support I suspect the project is headed in this direction anyway what with the claim that people won't be able to edit other people's messages when Flow goes live. —Soap— 22:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per HJ Mitchell. For those supporting, I note that protection is available via RFPP and direct request, and often happens without any request when there is substantial vandalism (as happened to mine, Alison got tired of reverting.) For those who say "Whyfor howcome admins and not me!!!!" I remind you that admins get harassed for their admin actions, which often includes vandalism of their user page. This does not happen to non-admins with the same frequency and ferocity as to admins, for the simple fact that no one is ever mad at non-admins for blocking them or other sanctions. That's obvious enough so I shouldn't have to explain it more. There is no need for more rulescreep to cover those whose pages are being vandalized and who do merit protection. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pre-emptive protection based on principle, not on practicality. It is reasonable to expect vandalism; however, we should still assume good faith, even if it isn't in the article space and I really can't see too many legitimate reasons to edit another's user page. Jimbo is an excellent example of this. I reject the notion that a user page does not qualify as an article in the spirit in which the founding principles were written. I also reject the notion of user page protection as hat collection, a concept that I think is way overblown. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It's done already, and consistency is needed, it shouldn't depend on which admin deals with the request. The clearest policy would be to semi-protect when requested - it has no negative effect; more likely a positive effect for editor retention. Not everyone wants a page about themselves that anyone can edit. That founding principle only applies to articles (and even then allows some exceptions - my opinion is that "request from BLP subject" should be one). If it's likely to result in backlogs, a separate page can be made for user-requested protections, that can be linked in an edit notice. The message displayed when viewing source of a protected page (it looks like MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext) needs adapting as it refers to articles, and also needs a link to a place to report problems (this applies to all namespaces, and whether this proposal succeeds or not). Peter James (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely the reason I posted this RfC for. This is done already, but the thing is that the policy doesn't allow it. Some admins follow it, while others don't. User:Materialscientist is an example of such an admin, but (s)he seems to be ignoring the messages I posted on their talk page. There are a lot of admins who still pre-emptively protect user pages upon request, but I'm surprised at the comparatively small number of those who actively participated in this discussion (though I'm not sure all of them are aware of this RfC). Perhaps some people are right about some admins not facing the situation because doing so could 'damage' their reputation as an administrator.

Yes, simply semi-protecting user space pages upon request would inarguably be the clearest policy, but I don't think it would be a good one at the same time. Like I mentioned above in my discussion with Jac16888, user space pages sometimes must not be protected from editing unless it's for other reasons (like vandalism, edit warring, socking, etc.), like in the case of a potential mainspace article currently in the userspace (some users don't prefer AfC). I guess we need to think of more such cases where pre-emptive user page protection request should be denied (leaving it to the administrators is apparently not working – there needs to be a basis of their judgement) if this proposal was to pass (which doesn't seem very likely, though that's not what I'm looking forward to anyway – all I want is a clearer policy and hence fairer user space pages protection decisions at WP:RFPP). And yes, that interface page does need to be updated; maybe it could vary according to the namespace of the protected article. smtchahal^talk 04:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per the saving anti-vandal time arguments. Alo it's good to be able to give editors what they want, this can encourage editor retention. I can see no harm coming from this change, and a little bit of good. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As an user whose user pages are a constant target of vandalism I know how annoying is IPs editing them in bad faith--why should I assume good faith of people who only come here to vandalize?--page protection should be applied, because it is really gross to see your user page with death threats, cyberbully messages, BLP violations against us or equal messages that first of all shouldn't be written--WP:FREE--and second they are not RevDel by admins. Although vandalism occurs more with vandalism reverters and admins, but it happens to editors who never have contact with vandals. Also I find interesting that at least HJ Mitchell had his user page protected in August 2010 "[edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (just a precaution-taking a wikibreak. Back in a week or so)"; this protection should not apply to talk pages unless it is a constant vandalism target. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per User:Salvidrim. In response to OP, if there's concern about admins fully-protecting their own user pages I would assume there's a policy of oversight to address that activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose all protection for less than what would get an article protected. The sole exception is the main user page, which should be full or none. In my opinion, despite what policy says, you de facto own that space, and can do more or less as you please there.

• This is specifically about the "main user page". You "oppose" but think they could all be protected? Can you clarify whether you support protection for "main" user pages without a history of vandalism? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support for the protection of main user pages, subpages, and talk page archives upon request. After all, I am a vandal fighter and that does open me up to attacks. I support short term semi-protection of user talk pages (no more than 72 hours) if someone like an IP hopper won't leave an editor alone. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who is allowed to protect a page?

There seems to be varying opinions on when an admin is allowed to protect a page. If an article has received long term vandalism by IPs over many months, is an admin allowed to protect the page if they have edited it in the past? Only if the edits were not significant? Or never allowed to protect that page and must go through Wikipedia:RFPP? This clarification would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You should never protect, at any level, anything in which you're a significant contributor. Always been that way, should stay that way. If in doubt, ask at RFPP or a neutral admin.PumpkinSky talk 22:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the actual practice, though. I've certainly semi-protected pages on which I'm a significant contributor, in cases where I think the semi-protection is so clearly and unequivocally justified that any admin would reach the same conclusion. WP:INVOLVED says as much: "the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator—even if involved—on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." In general, though, you're correct that if the decision is likely to be controversial then it's best to go to WP:RFPP or contact an uninvolved admin to review the situation. MastCell ^Talk 00:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur with MastCell - I do protect pages that I have edited when it is not controversial; if I didn't, I would quickly start flooding RFPP with all the WP:HRT protections I do. However, when it could be controversial (say an editing dispute or an upcoming editing dispute) I always send it to RFPP for transparency. I always view admin actions performed in my subject area (roads) that way. --Rschen7754 06:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To add onto that, sometimes it takes a subject expert to tell if someone is deliberately adding in factual errors to articles. --Rschen7754 06:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing that I have seen floated is that any involved administrator only protect articles (as opposed to templates) for a short duration and subsequently refer the matter to RFPP to ask for a review and a longer-term protection. It may not strictly be required by policy, as MastCell points out, but it's one way to mostly avoid drama yet still maintain the integrity of our articles. NW (Talk) 12:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, and there I would disagree - I've had to protect several articles in the past (on the order of a dozen or more) because of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip. It's hard to get an "uninvolved" admin to care about such a situation, let alone be willing to protect that many articles. That's the reality of working as an editor in content areas. When there's a content war, that is obviously controversial and that is something that should be referred to RFPP. --Rschen7754 23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is probably why we have a lot of templates that could use some work. NE Ent 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have issues with WP:HRT overall, then. --Rschen7754 23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of its existence until reading your prior post, but yes, it is contrary to the whole anyone can edit meme (but I doubt I'd get any traction attempting to change it). NE Ent 00:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the assertion "You should never protect, at any level, anything in which you're a significant contributor" is overly simplistic and doesn't reflect what WP:INVOLVED actually says, as the admins commenting here are pointing out. Newyorkbrad captures the nuance better in his comment here in saying "I think there is a significant difference between an administrator semiprotecting a page he or she edits regularly because of a content dispute, which would be troublesome, and the administrator's semiprotecting the page because of persistent vandalism or spamming, which would not trouble me at all, especially on medical articles" and further stating that what would actually be troublesome is protecting "for the forbidden purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute." -- it's the use of protection to gain advantage in a content dispute that must be avoided. We want the use of protection to be transparent and beyond reproach but at the same time we don't want to put article content at extra risk or put unnecessary burden on the volunteers at WP:RFPP (for example) by placing unnecessary* bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the admins who have been trusted to use the protection tools. I think in cases of questions of involvement, the idea NuclearWarfare mentions of doing short-term protection and also kicking it over to an appropriate board is a good one and is in line with where WP:INVOLVED says "it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards."

*Some bureaucratic obstacles are necessary to prevent abuse; unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles should be avoided.

Zad68 13:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If obviously needs protecting, rfpp is bureaucracy -- if ya'll have to think about it, or someone complains, then don't / refer to RPP respectively. It's not conflict of interest / involved which hurts Wikipedia -- it's the perception that admins think themselves a higher caste rather than the "no big deal" meme espoused at WP:ADMINISTRATOR. NE Ent 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I act in any area where it could be perceived that I am involved but it needs action now, I act, then drop it off at WP:AN for review, explaining what and why, with the note that any admin is free to revert me without permission. That seems to be clear up any question that I was acting under the exemption "any admin would have done the same" in WP:INVOLVED. It takes less than one minute to do this and it removes all doubt. It is my opinion that something like this would serve us well as policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose that - it means that "content" admins like myself can't deal with vandalism or G6 deletions for maintenance. --Rschen7754 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually it would free you up to do so, knowing there won't be any question as to your intentions because you left a note to that effect. That is why I do do it, I don't want to hear about a year from now, if you have a problem with my actions, say so when I report it. G6 wouldn't apply anyway, that isn't a controversial action. Protections and blocks would be covered if you are involved, and a rare deletion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, I suppose I misread that, but I doubt that it would help to improve the current environment at AN(I). Not to mention all of the admins who would be violating policy overnight because they were not aware of this. --Rschen7754 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:AN, not ANI, as the purpose is admin review. The times I have, two people typically said "yawn, looks fine" and it was closed. This is as much for my own benefit as the communities, to be honest, but it is the smart thing to do. If you are wrong about an action, then someone will revert it quickly and it can be discussed in a calm manner. Again, the key is giving permission to revert without consultation, which technically any admin already has if you are "involved". It is just a more polite and open way, which is why it is less likely to have drama. Like any new policy, it would take time and patience. At the least, it is good practice and again, it benefits you and the community. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I oppose it, too. If the situation is such that an admin feels immediate action is warranted, they should just do it with as little fuss as possible -- if someone objects, then make the posting on AN. Good admining should be like being a good referee -- ideally at the end of the game you don't notice they were there. NE Ent 00:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• If an admin feels a page needs protecting then protect it. If they are involved, then they probably have a better understanding of the issues than an un-involved admin. As long as the admin is not deliberately protecting the WP:WRONG version, or other admins are making non-consensus edits through protection. I have seen non-involved admins protect pages that should never have been protected, and that is just as bad as an involved admin protecting the wrong version.Martin451 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So how can we summary community opinion? "If an admin protects a page in which they are involved they should request a review after the fact at WP:AN. Otherwise they should go through WP:RPP." Or should the first bit only be done if time pressures exist? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is my feeling, that you don't let WP:involved stop you from doing your job when quick action is needed, you just keep it in the open. By the same token, if it is blatantly obvious (poop vandalism, BLP hate speech, etc) then reporting it at WP:AN isn't really needed. It isn't about my opinion of how involved I am, it is how I estimate the most skeptical but reasonable person might view it. For me, that it is the measuring stick. If I've been reverting a bunch of IPs back and forth, then figure out they are really trolling, I might semi-protect, but I instantly go to AN to get a review, cover myself and put more eyes on the problem. It only takes one or two sentences: "I was reverting some IPs at an article I edit regularly: article. Determined they were all trolling, I semi-protected, dropping off here for review. Feel free to revert or modify if you think I erred." Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• note: I'm not ignoring this, but rather reading other thoughts and considering how I want to word my own thoughts. Hopefully I'll have time to post tonight, if not, then I'll try to get my ideas out by tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• OK - it appears that my schedule is rapidly filling up IRL, so here are my thoughts quickly while I can:

1. I think this thread should be listed at RfC (and tagged as such).
2. My thoughts are very similar to what Dennis says here.
3. My take on policy is that we do not take administrative action on either an editor or an article which gives us an advantage. Even if it's only a "perceived" COI, I think our policies are pretty clear on this. Now, there is the notable exception (IAR style) that in an emergency we do what's needed to protect the project. So, during a holiday, weekend, middle of the night (which obviously varies depending on time zone) .. but any time there's perhaps a scarceness of administrators tending to an area - then I would not call foul on a 24 hour protection, pending a review by RFPP - (or AIV depending on the action taken). I also agree with Dennis in the use of AN and/or ANI in some cases outside the garden variety problem. It's one thing to have an interest in an article, and I don't even have a problem if there's a minor edit or two in the "fixed a typo", or "formatted the ref" style of admining if something needs protected or someone blocked. I don't think that's the type of thing that WP:INVOLVED is addressing. IF however, an admin. has actively been a content contributor to an article, then I think it has to be an absolute emergency with no help in sight for said admin. to take out his tools. And they should certainly never indef. such a thing. (protection or block). Our policies are pretty clear on this. Now I'm not a huge fan of instruction creep, so I don't see a need to establish any "24 hour rule" (or whatever) in the sense that it should be codified. Now if this is still open when I have a bit more time, I'll gladly expand or clarify. Thanks and best to all. — Ched :  ?  13:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for anything more than modifying WP:INVOLVED to say "If an admin takes action in an area where they are involved and there is any potential for contention in that action by other editors, the admin should voluntarily leave a note at WP:AN asking for review immediately after taking that action". I don't see a need to make it more complicated than that. I'm more concerned about making it a habit rather than a hard policy. This method allows us to act as a team, an admin team, and review each others actions any time there is a chance of any contention. It encourages disclosure and engagement. This means that if I'm doing something wrong, YOU can say "Dennis, you really shouldn't do that because of $x" the first time I do it, not after it goes to ANI on the 12th time I do it. If I'm afraid of dropping it off at WP:AN, then I probably shouldn't be doing it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, definitely good practice. Would be happy to see this turned into a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)