Video Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection
"Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests"
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page says,
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
I searched the top of that page for many minutes and I could not find instructions on how to post a request to edit protected pages. If those instructions are there, but not obvious in some way, could they please be made more obvious? And if those instructions are not there, then either they need to be put there, or at least the bullet point I just quoted shouldn't say that the instructions are there when they aren't there. --Anomalocaris (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I submitted the request at User talk:Daniel#Edit request: User talk:Daniel/Archive/54, with {{Edit fully-protected|User talk:Daniel/Archive/54}}. I removed the request from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
This all happened because it says
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request.
As the page in question already is a discussion page, it doesn't have a discussion page of its own, so I concluded that this page (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) is the right place to make that request. However, I now conclude that the discussion page for User talk:Daniel/Archive/54 is User talk:Daniel. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Maps Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection
Do we need to change the protection policy w.r.t. ECP?
The protection policy currently states:
- In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection
Furthermore, specifically:
- Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred
In my mind, this means ECP can only be applied to pages that are already under semi, and where more blocks had to be additionally issued than could be considered reasonable. This is the interpretation that we followed when a few of us recently wrote the rough guide to extended confirmed protection. Going with a popular theme around the number 3, I might suggest as a rule of thumb like the one we have for create protection, that ECP can be enabled after as soon as the third autoconfirmed user has been blocked with respect to the article within a reasonably short time. (amendments made 11:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC))
Recently, some of us have started applying ECP more liberally to any case where there was autoconfirmed disruption, or where such disruption might be likely. Such use is, in my opinion, not currently covered by the policy, i.e. admins are acting in violation of the policy and have only IAR to cover their asses. I don't think this is a desirable situation.
So the question arises whether it is necessary and reasonable to ask the community to relax the conditions under which ECP can be used, or whether we have to reign it in and stick more closely to what the policy says. There is, in my opinion, no point to having a policy that nobody actually adheres to.
Looking forward to your opinions.
Samsara 11:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- None of my business, of course, and I'm probably nitpicking in any case; but I don't really read that as saying that the page actually has to be under a semi at that point in time. Rather that it has been at some (presumably recent) point in the past, which has proven itself ineffective- thus allowing an upgrade to a more serious level of sanction. Whether this orthographic hair-splitting makes one jot of effective or material difference, I have no idea. SerialNumber54129 11:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-
- In principle, your point is sound, but it complicates things by requiring that we have a shared sense of "recent". The cleanest way I can see of dealing with this is to put it under semi, wait for the three blocks to happen, then elevate to ECP. Samsara 15:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think semi-protection is for preverting IP editor and extended-confirmed protection is for preventing new editor. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- That is not quite correct and clarified in the linked documents. Samsara 12:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Great point, and I will put my hands up to being one of the "us" referred to above. I come from the days when bureaucracy was frowned on and process was there as a guide not a constraint, but this clearly does need thinking through. I suspect the best solution is to have a periodic review of ECP articles via WP:AN to see if there is still consensus that protection is still needed. Wikipedia is not good at periodic reviews, and I think we should become better at this - it is a great way of allowing busy people to take rapid, decisive action while minimising the potential for long term unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments