Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Can we add Signpost articles as an exception to WP:PREEMPTIVE??

Pre-emptively protecting Signpost articles (to confirmed/autoconfirmed) makes a lot of sense to me because they don't need to be updated post-publication and never really need to be edited except by bots/scripts.

Pinging @Frostly: because they may or may not have an opinion on this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide several examples of signpost pages that were edited unjustifiably, in order to demonstrate that a problem exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC) amended Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, the current Signpost editor-in-chief has already confirmed/autoconfirmed protected a lot of the past issues, after they were granted administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll second Redrose64's request for some examples. We really need to know how often it's a problem before we consider changes to the policy. And even if there's consensus that preemptive protection makes sense, I would want the protections to be automated or done by the Signpost team rather than adding load to WP:RFPP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

An example or two wouldn't tell you how often it's a problem. Polygnotus (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, which is why I asked for examples (which is open-ended), and not "an example or two" (which is closed). I've inserted the word "several" to clarify this. The more examples that you can provide, the easier it will be for us to observe that a problem exists that needs to be fixed. If it's happening on a daily basis, we probably do need to take action; but if it's only once a year, it should be quite sufficient to ask the person who made the edit to explain it; if not, a simple revert will do.

A general principle, that should be followed by anybody seeking to create a new rule or amend an existing rule, is: can you justify that new rule or amendment in a non-hypothetical form? In other words:

1. demonstrate that a problem exists
2. show that existing processes are insufficient to overcome the problem
3. propose a method that will either solve the problem, or prevent it from re-occurring
4. invite comments and be prepared to defend your proposal
5. if sufficient parties are in agreement, implement the proposal

You've come up with (3) and (4), but not (1) or (2). I'm just asking for (1) at this stage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

But its not a new rule, it is exception to an existing rule. And the idea is not to create one but to mention it. Polygnotus (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

New, exception or amendment, the principle is the same: don't mess with the system just because you want to. It applies right to the top - you don't get governments saying "I know, let's pass a law that says that you can't step on the cracks in the pavement", it sounds like they want to control people's lives for the sheer hell of it. No, first they identify the cracks in the pavement as an existing problem (people have been tripping up leading to injury); second, they show that existing processes (sending somebody with cement and a trowel) are insufficient (there is no more cement in the stores); third, they propose a new method (tell everybody not to step on the cracks); fourth, they invite discussion (somebody suggests buying more cement); fifth, they agree that the amended proposal is the better idea even though it costs more. Result: people don't trip up, and feel better about the lawmakers even though their taxes are slightly higher. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you seem to be very passionate about this rather boring topic, do you have any reasons? Are there any downsides I am not aware of? Do you think new users are likely to try to make improvements to Signpost articles that would be prevented by protection, which would force them to use a template on the associated talkpage, which they won't do for which reasons? I'm not sure I understand that scenario. Oh, and can you provide a list of examples please. I'll tell you when you have enough of them (I won't specify a number but its more than 2). Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's a boring topic, why did you raise it in the first place? Do you have any reasons other than they don't need to be updated post-publication and never really need to be edited except by bots/scripts? If I seem passionate, it's because I am trying to explain why I am not going to approve a policy change on the request of one person, especially when that person refuses to show why the policy as it stands requires any change.

As for Oh, and can you provide a list of examples please. I'll tell you when you have enough of them (I won't specify a number but its more than 2). - are you joking? Do you really want me to provide examples of signpost pages not being edited because nobody felt like vandalising them that day?

I am not the one that is seeking change to an existing policy, it's you. You need to justify your proposal, otherwise it's change for the sake of change; so, you need to explain exactly why. If you put forth reasons why this must be done, I (and others) can consider each point carefully, and offer reasons why that point doesn't stand up. Therefore, it's not my duty to provide examples - it's yours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I was making a point... As a volunteer here, it is not my duty to do anything. This is why we must fork Wikipedia so we can start over with little to no policy and make the same mistakes all over again. It is a cycle all long term online communities go through, from wild west to Kafkaesque (which rhymes if you are a rapper). Do you need citations for that? Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, it's standard to request evidence of a problem before changing policy, and Redrose64 has been respectful in doing that. If you're not willing to provide any evidence, then it's unlikely the policy will change.

Also, it's one of Wikipedia's core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner and you're not doing that here. Your last comment is so uncivil that I suggest you reexamine what you've said and consider whether you want to strike it or apologize. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: Are you familiar with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement? Your last comment is at the second lowest tier. I suggest you apologize and strike your comment. In future, try refuting the points people make without attacking them. Polygnotus (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at the OP's original justification for protection (they don't need to be updated post-publication and never really need to be edited except by bots/scripts), since no evidence for it has been provided. These are the articles in a recent issue of the Signpost:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Community view: Seven post-publication edits. None are by bots or scripts.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Gallery: Eleven post-publication edits. None are by bots or scripts.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/In the media: Twelve post-publication edits. None are by bots or scripts.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/News and notes: Thirteen post-publication edits. None are by bots or scripts.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Opinion: Zero post-publication edits.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Recent research: Three post-publication edits. One is by a bot or script.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Serendipity: Five post-publication edits. None are by bots or scripts.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-26/Traffic report: Two post-publication edits. None are by bots or scripts.

The OP's original premise appears to be faulty. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See Straw man. Which of those who made good edits are not confirmed/autoconfirmed? None in the list above... You can't just isolate a part of a sentence in a way that distorts its meaning (because of the lack of context) and then pretend you refuted anything. Polygnotus (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Isolate a part of a sentence? I literally copied and pasted every part of the OP's rationale that followed the word "because". See WP:REFUSINGTOPROVIDEEXAMPLESEVENWHENASKEDNICELY. The OP has not provided any examples of the need for protection of these pages. I linked to a lot of productive edits, any of which could reasonably have been made by new and helpful editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Icon redirect

The BLACKLOCK icon at Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation redirects to Wikipedia:Protection_policy#full, but Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Office_actions would be more on point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I believe you are right, but the policy isn't the place to fix this. This needs to be raised as an issue at Module talk:Protection banner. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought someone here would know where (or even better, how, and do it). I'll move over there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That module is a bit convoluted so I probably should have qualified my answer. Anyhow, if that doesn't end up being the right place, you could also ask on WP:VPT. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Operational pages

I propose updating the policy to explicitly cover the protection of operational pages used by bots and user scripts. While many of these pages are already protected, it would be better to include something in the policy. User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop is the most recent target of a disruptive edit, but this has also happened in the last year with User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Shutoff, User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin, User:DatBot/Filter reporter/Run, User:GreenC bot/button, User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links, and User:Yapperbot/kill/FRS. If there is consensus, I would like to add a Protection of operational pages section under the Uncommon protections section as follows:

Operational pages used by software, including bots and user scripts, may be protected based on the type of use, content, and other considerations. This includes, but is not limited to, configuration pages, data pages, log pages, and status pages. However, personal CSS, personal JavaScript, and personal JSON are automatically protected and should not be protected for this reason.

Note that the intrapage links will omit the page name if this is added to the policy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I updated the proposed text slightly to remove Similar to templates which is unnecessary and I also updated the proposed location since it doesn't really fit in the Protection by namespace section. Most of the protections for this reason are in User space, but some are in Wikipedia space, Module space, and Template space. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the section with some minor rewording, and with one significant change: I added principally as an additional restriction to ensure this doesn't extend to cases where software happens to use a page (e.g., protecting Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee because a user script extracts the list of ArbCom members would not be covered).

If anyone has comments or concerns about this change to encode common practice in policy, please let me know. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)