Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

Pending Changes article tag

How insistent are we on the big pending changes article tag during the trial: Template:Pp-pending (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Amalthea 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I say we get rid of it. Every article under PCP already shows an informational message during editing, and shows the status message in the top right corner. If any content from {{pp-pending}} is missing from that edit notice, it should be added there.
But showing that intrusive banner at the top of soon 2000 largely perfectly decent articles is not helpful (and showing it on any good or featured articles is right out). Amalthea 00:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion now at Help talk:Pending changes#Article defacement. Amalthea 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Is pending changes protection similar to semi protection? Does all pages that apply to pending changes have to be move protected? --Merle Lang (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Does protection cause vandalism elsewhere?

Does the inability to effectively make changes anonymously alienate some individuals to go out of their way to spread mis-information elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.62.194 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Salting?

Creation protection prevents a page (normally a previously deleted one) from being recreated. (also known as "salting").
Could "salting" be linked to an article for explanation? Salt (cryptography) looks not connected. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Salting the earth is the explanation that's wanted. Back in the bad old days, there was no create-protection, so to prevent recreation of an article, one had to delete it, recreate it with a template message ("salt") explaining that there was no article there, and then protect that so that nothing could grow there. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Full protection

On what grounds would a page be fully protected? Surely such protection goes against the very ethics of Wikipedia? Cls14 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In what respects does the current page fail to address your concerns satisfactorily? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't answer why a page would be fully protected, hence me asking the question above Cls14 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It gives three possible scenarios: content disputes, vandalism, and history-only review. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indicator for Salted title?

If I go to the page for a title that has been protected from creation such as California's_Canada, there is nothing on the page other than the lack of a Create Tab to indicate that the title has been Salted. I think that there should be, can someone help me with where this should be discussed, if not here? Naraht (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is the box that reads "This page has been locked so only administrators can create it." –xenotalk 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for this change, and if so where is it?

Talking about this edit [1]. Are we really at this point or is this user being overzealous? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"semi" anchor

Shouldn't the anchor for "semi" be at the Semi-protection section? Right now it's at the "Full protection" section, which could cause confusion. Evil saltine (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of entries

It looks like some effort has recently been undertaken to reorder the presentation of protection levels in some sort of order of "strength". I'd like to suggest instead that the page be reordered to move office action and permanent protection to the bottom. I know these are "potent", but it's very unlikely a user is arriving at this page seeking information on these two types of protection, since they're, by the numbers, the rarest protection types, and are very unlikely to concern most users. I'm assuming most users are interested in (1) full protection and (2) semiprotection. It would make more sense to feature these first. --Bsherr (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I meant to do this after I saw someone move office protection to the top. It's so rare that it doesn't need first placement. –xenotalk 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Bsherr (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Padlock color for upload protection

Do we use any specific padlock icon for files that are upload protected only? The shortcut to #Upload_protection is WP:PURPLELOCK but I haven't seen this used anywhere. I assume it's either (more of a pink but it's called "Padlock-purple.svg") or (Padlock-violet.svg). I want to know so I can make it the same on Commons. If neither is in use yet, which one should we go with? Rocket000 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Padlock-violet.svg a lot better than Padlock-purple.svg. Usb10 Connected? 01:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It'd be nice to have the appropriate template altered to include a new padlock as an option to appear in the top right corner of a page with Upload protection invoked on it. There's no real visible indicator that a File has Upload protection, except for the lack of the Upload option of course, which is both hard to spot and confusing for users unfamiliar with Upload protection. It'd be nice if you could just come across a File, and instantly be able to tell it has this protection.--Dorsal Axe 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks pink to me :-| ☭ мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 15:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

do we even need it? i have never seen "upload protection" actully being used on wikipedia and non of the pages what use the pink lock are any article pages Sophie (Talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

SPAs and NPOV

Regarding this addition, that clause was not lost in editing, but rather was made into a more general and fair statement, namely "If clearly inappropriate content is the subject of an edit war, it is best to block or ban those who are violating the content policies and not those who are enforcing them." There is no need to single out (no pun intended) SPAs, since multi-purpose accounts can edit-war for a POV as well, though in those cases a ban might be a better solution than a block. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I had previously removed this too [2], only because it's not specifically related to protection. Suggestions about dealing with content disputes generally would be more relevant in WP:EW. January (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, of those content policies, only BLP actually carries a specific exemption to WP:3RR. January (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, PSWG1920. The SPA-essay is far too frequently abused, as a label applied to newer users (registered or unregistered), who it's self evident will have edited less pages. Otherwise, it risks weighting content disputes in favor of established users' enforcing their own preferred version/pov. –Whitehorse1 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In cases where a highly POV SPA is repeatedly adding bias information to an article is only makes sense to block the SPA and not the editor who is maintaining the integrity of the article. Right? Basket of Puppies 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If the situation is that clear-cut, then yes, but why should it make a difference whether a SPA is involved or not? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed it. This is also not in line with current practice (earlier tonight a user was blocked for a 3RR violation after repeatedly removing unsourced information added by an IP). Only vandalism and BLP violations are specified exemptions and this policy shouldn't give the impression that the other content policies would give a similar exemption. January (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That is very sad that an editor was blocked because he was maintaining the integrity of an article. It's even sadder to know that this enjoys community support. Basket of Puppies 04:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A statement about blocking users is irrelevant to page protection. The only thing that need be said is that a page should not be protected if instead users can be blocked. Let WP:Edit warring be the sole guideline to speak to the above point. Articulating it in two guidelines can only lead to inconsistency. --Bsherr (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
For the same reason, I would also consider the reference to bans irrelevant. Banning is a longer-term measure, not an immediate alternative to protecting a page. (I initially removed this as well but was reverted.) January (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a redirect

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, a redirect to Wikipedia:Signatures, has been the the target of spam or vandalism regularly for years, apparently from the same person creating single-use accounts. Anyway, I've protected it. I know that some templates interfere with redirects, or don't show up, so I haven't templated it. I can't find any mention in the archive about templating protected redirects, nor is there anything in the policy about it. Any thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Template transclusions don't manifest visibly on redirected pages, so there's not much point to a protection template for redirects, which is why (to my knowledge) one doesn't exist. Protected redirects are categorized manually, by adding Category:Protected redirects. Indeed, there's no documentation for protection categorization and templates. Actually, there's barely an organized scheme. But it'll take an RfC to resolve that mess. --Bsherr (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the category. Would you be interested in adding a sentence or two to the policy page in case this comes up again?   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. I know it really needs to be documented, and I'm very tempted to do it, but I'm reluctant to patch this into the policy. Really, the entire scheme needs to be documented, and, frankly, some decisions have to be made first (when to use the "small" parameter, when to have the move protection icon visible). Also, it really doesn't belong in the policy, because actually the template scheme should be a guideline (not policy), and that requires separating it. Maybe it's time to take on the mess. --Bsherr (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I guess there's no harm adding it to the available templates section at the end. We'll just have to deal with it eventually. --Bsherr (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Great - that'll be a help to others, I'm sure.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The old templates are back

It looks like someone switched the templates back to the old file with just the lock instead of the lock with the symbol on it. I was wondering why? Inka888 05:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Pp-meta#More accessible protection icons. --Bsherr (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and protection

Are sockpuppetry and protection related, and if so how? When is an indefinite protection due to sockpuppetry long enough before we attempt unprotection? Should we modify our protection policy to take that into account? And other related topics... 220.100.87.222 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Today I noticed a user requesting unprotection for Basmati. The merits of the request, which I happen to agree with, were

Protection after Nangparbat changed the order of the countries at the top on one occassion, which was over a year ago now.

To be fair, after investigating a little, I noticed that there were actually a handful of instances of this happening in a 1-month+ period prior to protection. Even so, this level of "vandalism" (actually, a content dispute) would not normally attract a semi-protection, let alone an indefinite one.

The protecting admin is on indefinite hiatus. The admin on WP:RUP duty declined the request, saying

I'm reluctant here. It was protected because of sockpuppetry, and, from, what I know of Nangparbat, this is a fairly typical target. Suggest raising it on the talk page to see if the article's regulars think it's worth a try.

Now, I respect the decision, and I understand the admin's hesitation. Just to be clear, my intention here is not to dispute this particular incident.

However, I would have thought that sockpuppetry is relevant to user blocking, not necessarily semiprotection. I think this issue goes beyond Basmati and needs further, high-level discussion with the community. Nangparbat has targeted a very wide variety of pages, from Cauliflower to Bus rapid transit. Roughly, the pattern seems to be, anything that links to India is fair game. This in my opinion does not mean that we should go around and instantly (and by the way, indefinitely) semi-protect all the pages they touch, otherwise "the terrorists have won", as it were.

Thoughts? 124.147.78.105 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I do feel that in this case the protection has more merit than in other equivalent pages, as there are no regulars at this article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I could not see where in the policy it says that the number of watchers (which is not public, for good reasons) should be taken into account when protecting. If it should (I would disagree), or if this is current practice (I don't think it is), and if our policy doesn't say, then by all means let's also have that discussion, in another section, and see if we can include this point in the policy.
Incidentally, in this case, I can see that in the days just before protection three separate editors, plus ironically one IP, immediately reverted other "vandalism" (again, it's ultimately content dispute). 220.210.178.183 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
True sockpuppetry isn't the issue here, it's IP vandalism. It doesn't matter if the vandalism comes from someone that has previously socked or not. The question is, will IP vandalism on the article resume if protection is removed? Hence, I agree that no policy change is needed. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Four or so vandalism edits certainly doesn't justify protection for over a year the first time it occurs, sockpuppeting is definitely the reason this one is still protected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
@220.210.178.183, while the number of watchers isn't in the policy it is taken into account when making protections, and its especially important with an article which has been attacked by a known sockpuppet, if only I and the unprotecting admin have it watched we might miss something. There are plenty more to choose from which may well have regulars. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said, let's get an RfC on that then. There's at least one good reason why taking into account the number of watchers when semi-protecting is not a good idea, and that is that unregistered editors (perhaps the interested parties of a BLP issue) cannot remove vandalism, which has happened before. 113.197.209.20 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Note for everyone: 220.210.178.183 (220.xx) is 124.147.78.105 (124.xx). This guy behind these IPs has followed all YM's past administrative actions for, AFAIK, at least eight days. More infos might be found at YM RFC talkpage or YM talkpage.--115.75.158.147 (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to everyone: please note that the editor Nangparbat is currently one of the editors who are not blockable. Any form of effective rangeblocking will result in severe collateral damage. Severe by I mean, blocking at least half of Britain. As a result, the standard was to protect any pages he was editing. Since the current checkusers, YellowMonkey, Nishkid64, and Hersfold are currently inactive/not very active, I am not inclined to fully unprotect the pages labeled "Nangparbat" or "editing by banned users". Though, this is just my thoughts. Another admin if see fit may change the protection level. Elockid (Talk) 15:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect I highly doubt that all the edits claimed to have been committed by Nangparbat have actually been committed by them. Significant numbers of the "Nangparbat" edits are actually perfectly sensible - such as this one or this one. Of course there are cases where obviously POV edits are made and in those cases pending changes (EDIT: or semi protection) makes more sense but that doesn't apply in all cases. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

YM is widely known to have tarred many IP edits that he simply did not like with the same "Nangparbat" brush. Many pages that YM semiprotected indefinitely citing "Nangparbat" as the reason are being unprotected successfully. They are doing all right, proving that Nangparbat may have found something better to do and it's only active in our psyche. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone has full knowledge of why a page was protected. This is why users who are making requests for unprotecting a page are asked to ask the protecting admin whether or not it would be alright to unprotect the page. Since YM has been on an indefinite hiatus, admins may not know the background reason for why a page has been protected. This is the reason I assume why those pages are being unprotected. It would seem that my previous supported by the response: I'm reluctant here. It was protected because of sockpuppetry, and, from, what I know of Nangparbat, this is a fairly typical target. Suggest raising it on the talk page to see if the article's regulars think it's worth a try.
@Eraserhead: The edit on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 I would say is  Confirmed to be Nangparbat. Also, this is a target for another banned user, Hkelkar (talk · contribs). The other page I'm still thinking about. Elockid (Talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The edit made to the Indo-Pakistanti War of 1971 was correct and quite clearly follows policy. Its totally incomprehensible why anyone reverted it to the more POV version of calling it a decisive victory. We don't call World War 2 a decisive victory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
@Elockid: This is the trouble when an admin abuses their powers to push their POV, as YM has demonstrably and repeatedly done in the past, diffs available. Some pages will be contentious, and it's difficult to tell if our POV is in check if we keep banning users and protecting pages (i.e. excluding most of our readers from the equation). 220.100.87.222 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a point of clarification, you two crusaders are definitely entitled to your opinion, but "YM is widely known to have tarred many IP edits that he simply did not like with the same "Nangparbat" brush" is rubbish. And I say that as one of the admins who has been involved in blocking the socks of this chap and two of his counter sockmasters. The guy has been here longer than I have and creating socks left right and center for over two years, it's only over the last 3-6 months that we've seen a lull from him, and even that we're not sure. Whether it's time to unprotect now is a legitimate question, but randomly assigning blame that it was a content dispute between the protecting admin and an ip or that he did it to any ip is absurd and uncalled for. —SpacemanSpiff 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It is quite clear when you start going through Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely semi-protected articles that there are lots of different things that Nangparbat does, some are undeniable vandalism and hardcore POV warrioring, and at the other extreme you have edits which are correcting the article to follow policy. It seems highly likely that the bad edits are Nangparbat, and that the edits that are at the other end of the spectrum are not - especially when their IP hasn't made any bad edits at all. Nangparbat isn't the only Pakistani national living in Britain - other Pakistanis may well be editing these articles and making good contributions to the project and to some extent they will have similar views - we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush.
The sorts of articles I have been requesting unprotection for have only been edited by Nangparbat once or twice, and quite often its difficult to even see what the vandalism actually was - as surprisingly was the case for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
Finally lets be clear that the entire point of the exercise is to request unprotection for some unnecessary protections - not to assign blame for them. Most of the unprotections I've requested have been protected for significantly over a year. Any comments about what was going on before the protection (including mentioning possible content disputes) are intended to help the admins looking at the case to decide what they want to do, and aren't intended to place any blame on anyone. Given we are prepared to forgive vandals per WP:OFFER after 6 months I think we can ignore any considerably older transgressions made by someone who has written multiple articles to WP:FA status. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Er, no. You keep inserting comments about "content dispute that the protecting admin had with the IP" against clear NP edits. That's assigning blame, and wrongly at that, period. I have no problem with anyone asking for unprotections on articles that don't need them anymore, but both you and the IP keep inserting snide remarks here and there which is uncalled for, especially since neither of you have ever had to deal with the mess that the NP socks or the counter socks ever caused. And the two other CUs who handled this before YM started handling it maintained reports on all these too, including multiple abuse reports to the ISPs. There are a couple of good and correct edits that NP makes every now and then, that has always been his pattern (and I'm going to invoke WP:BEANS here on any further identifying info, as that's one reason we've had to deal with many of these things through email), but CU results with user agents etc are quite clear. —SpacemanSpiff 20:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Please can I see some diffs of these clear NP edits that I have claimed are a content dispute? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
[3] —SpacemanSpiff 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that IP's history that seems likely to be correct - so I apologise for not looking at the matter carefully enough in that case. However the idea that a Pakistani political party has a charitable wing did not seem controversial - and thus it seemed to me to be a content dispute. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Coincidence is always a possibility when dealing with sockpuppetry. However, like a fingerprint, people have a "distinct" behavior and habit that makes them more easily identifiable and make coincidence less plausible. The edits made by those IPs I would say with a high degree of certainty are Nangparbat. The behavior or technical evidence matches up. I don't want to go in specifics publicly why long-term protections or any sort of protections are used per WP:BEANS.
Some sockpuppets also like to change their behavior to try and deceive others. See Mehrunes Dagon (talk · contribs) for example. Who would have thought that this account belonged to an abusive banned user? There are good hand bad hand accounts all the time. If you decide to spend some time in sockpuppetry, you might be surprised to find that not everything seems the way it seems. Sockpuppetry is difficult to handle. This is why we hardly have any admins (percentage wise at least) who deal with sockpuppets in a daily basis. Even less are editors who report or deal with sockpuppetry in a daily basis. Yet, sockpuppetry is commonly reported. What I'm trying to say is that we don't have enough experienced users to deal with long-term abuse from sockpuppets especially for sensitive areas like India-Pakistani disputes. This is why protecting the pages and in some cases long-term protections is considered the best way in dealing with sockpuppetry. Elockid (Talk) 00:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
When you say "long-term protections", what do you mean? I would have thought 1 year would be plenty in most if not all cases, so declining unprotection on sock grounds after 1 year sounds unreasonable to me. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Long-term meaning a duration of at least 3 months or more. The time elapsed is not the only factor admins consider when unprotecting. Activity of the sockpuppeteer(s), yes there are more than one in some of the articles that have been mentioned, history of the article and the article subject whether it sensitive or not are some of the factors. Elockid (Talk) 04:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For interested users: see the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 pages. This is a great comparison for the issue. Elockid (Talk) 00:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you claim that a range block is required on half of Britain to block Nangparbat then you are blatantly are going to pick up a whole bunch of other IP editors in the net as well. There are 700 thousand British Pakistanis and of those 700 thousand people some of them will make edits to Wikipedia - and they will be quite likely to be "pro" Pakistan.
Bambifan has good cops so that he can attract editors to his "cause", no-one is going to be attracted to the cause of an IP editor who makes half a dozen edits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Another way of putting it is are there any British Pakistani editors who edit Pakistan related articles who aren't Nangparbat? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. This edit (same IP from Pakistan and state terrorism) by the language and syntax as well as the articles being targeted and general behavior are pretty much the same as Nangparbat. My reason for using Bambifan as an example is that pages the he touches are protected in some form, either PC or semi, sometimes full, and even though he hasn't been as active, I still have yet to find someone who is fully aware of Bambifan that would agree to fully unprotect the pages they are editing. Elockid (Talk) 01:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that the UK makes up 10% of the readership of Wikipedia, and given the large number of British editors on the project it seems astonishingly unlikely that there isn't at least one reasonably high-profile British Pakistani Wikipedia editor. In which case it seems extremely likely that non-Nangparbat editors are getting confused with Nangparbat. In this particular case, well maybe they are Nangparbat <shrug> that talk page edit is quite strange, as is this behaviour afterwards from a different IP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"Not to my knowledge"? Are you saying that to your knowledge all British Pakistani editors who have edited and will edit Pakistan-related articles actually are one and the same person? Eraserhead1 makes a very valid point.
Again, some "NP pages" (i.e. roughly any page that links to India, i.e. truck loads of WP pages with precious little else in common) have been recently unprotected after a year or two, and I do not see any disastrous consequences.
I think Bambifan is a completely different story, because that's mostly demented vandalism with no rationale. Here we are talking about excluding one whole POV, plus the vast majority of our readers, indefinitely, from the equation. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, what is the conclusion here then, that any articles that YM has indefinitely semi-protected citing "Nangparbat" as the justification will remain semi-protected forever? This is my interpretation of Courcelles' comment. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Eraserhead: Yup. That's the difficult part in assessing sockpuppetry is that statistics and probability favor coincidence/another user editing. With the absence of the the three CUs, it gets harder. For sockpuppets like NP that have higher probability of being another user, more minute details are what I look for. Minute like what kind of words they're using or how they spell words, or how they formulate their sentences. Cues like those. Sort of like their handwriting but different, it's hard to explain.
@220.100.87.222: I'm not saying that they will be one person. But based on behavioral evidence as well as technical evidence, the person making those types of edits so far have been historically the same person. CUs have also supported this for accounts. The Pakistanis that I have seen or met have not exhibited the same behavior as NP or edit the same manner. See the explanation I have given above. Please also see this comment with regards to one of the recent unprotections. No it doesn't mean that they will be semi-protected forever. See Cauliflower for example. Elockid (Talk) 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The example of Himalayas, given recent activity after unprotection, does confirm that indef semi was overkill, and see also these edits that followed the one you mentioned.
Indeed Cauliflower, and plenty other more contentious ones, like Freedom of religion in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), have been left happily unprotected for a long time after "Nangparbat" indefinite semis. Given these examples, my point is that I don't see how "Not opening this door again" can be a valid justification for perpetuating dubious indefinite semis. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And 94.5.29.189 (talk · contribs) did follow who is not the blocked user and who is unrelated to the comments mentioned. There has been no constructive edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed or IPs so far. We deal with a lot of disruptive editing and sockpuppetry here. As such, when admins know that an article is protected due to a long time disruptive user, they are not inclined to unprotect the article without the advice of the protecting admin. Maintenance is also a big issue. Elockid (Talk) 04:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The amount of disruption Himalayas had since its unprotection does not warrant an indefinite semi by any stretch of the imagination. You will also note that 94.5.29.189 (talk · contribs) does not quite follow a NP pattern.
Yes, vandalism is a problem at Wikipedia. However, we also have a policy that has evolved via consensus over the years, which I believe does a pretty good job at balancing between protecting against vandalism and keeping our site open. It's just unfortunate that YM was not paying much attention to it. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When you unprotect 45 articles some of them are going to attract some vandalism. All of the ones I have requested unprotection for are on my watchlist, and actually I'm surprised at how little vandalism there has been on those articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Elockid, I see your point, I think we need to be quite careful and look at the individual IP users actions to make sure we aren't assuming Nangparbat where they don't exist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please confirm the following understanding of mine?

  1. CheckUser is useless for identifying socks that have access to dynamic IPs
  2. Nangparbat has/had access to rapidly-changing dynamic IPs that span a large user base in UK

Thanks. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser can link sock accounts on dynamic IPs, but can't always find them all. CheckUser is not necessary to identify unregistered users on dynamic IPs, but can provide additional evidence and help to identify sock accounts. That BT range being used is both dynamic and enormous in the UK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is another interesting case of trial-by-monkey and subsequent admin covering, this time applied to Anti-Christian violence in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.111.119.62 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussions and elections

There is no mention of the state of protection for closed/archived discussions or elections. Can you please clarify. --Wayiran (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes they need to be edited like the rest of the wiki, so they default to unprotected and otherwise fall under the normal criteria - if there's excessive disruption or vandalism they can get protected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user -> unregistered user

{{editsemiprotect}} As per

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In the spirit of calling a spade a spade, please change all instances of "anonymous user" in this project page to "unregistered user", or "IP user". Thank you. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.25.225.73, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


92.25.225.73 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC) What do you want to change? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I was asked to come and have a look at closing this. Going through the discussion my first thought is that there seems solid agreement that no matter what the wording admins should not be making substantive edits of their own volution through full protection. i.e. admins should, in general, treat the page as if they were facing it as an editor. On the other hand this specific proposed rewording faced a reasonable level of opposition; these boiled down to "it's duplicating the meaning of the previous paragraph", that it doesn't matter because it will not fix the problem and (the more substantial reasoning) it is still ill defined over what sort of edit would be allowed/disallowed. Tryptofish's suggestion got mixed support, but probably not enough to implement.
Given the mixed bag of concerns my summary is that there is currently no consensus for this specific change; although perhaps the whole paragraph could be re-written for a little more clarity --Errant (chat!) 10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I refer to today's kerfuffle at Gabrielle Giffords in which a number of admins, including myself, made substantive edits to a fully protected page. It appears there is a widely held view that such edits are inappropriate. It also appears that this did not occur to a number of admins (myself included). I see the merit in that view: admins are not super-editors. Accordingly, I propose amending this page to insert the bolded sentence below.

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the Editprotected template on the talk page. Administrators should only make substantive edits to a fully protected article if there is consensus to do so.

Thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So long as it's clear that uncontroversial or maintenance edits are OK, such as adjusting a protection template or messing around with punctuation (assuming it's not the punctuation in dispute) then looks good. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I'm trying to summarise with the word "substantive". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I certainly wouldn't count that as substantive. They sound like minor edits to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, although I think saying that they will be crushed by elephant if they fail to follow the policy would be more persuasive. I assume that implied action for violating the policy will have to suffice though since crushing by elephant would be considered a personal attack. Cat-five - talk 21:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support It already says that noncontroversial edits can be made without consensus. And correcting grammar and templates are clearly noncontroversial. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with this change, although I'd always thought it was obvious. Trebor (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support sounds good. Admins are editors like any one else The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support however, it needs to be made explicitly clear. Dusti*poke* 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support, but I don't believe for a minute it will work as a preventive measure. So long as this is understood as something to hold administrators' noses in and say "Bad!", after the fact, it's fine. A better approach would be to encourage reducing the protection level when it isn't actually preventing what it sets out to prevent. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, what about when an administrator makes arguably non-substantive edits that are not addressing anything urgent? I think (?) some of the edits during this mess included some spelling corrections that were not related to protecting the page or correcting BLP issues or other substantive matters of content. It seems to me that admins should also refrain from making gnomish edits during full protection, if we really believe that they should not make edits that other editors could have made. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

*This has been included in Template:Centralized discussion for wider input The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support should be obvious. --Rschen7754 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The policy already says "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus.". This applies to administrators too, and I don't think duplicating the text will help. This is more about making sure that administrators understand - and follow - the protection policy, which in this case it appears they haven't been doing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. (edit conflict) I suppose it is restating the obvious, but could potentially be useful. Let "substantive" be at editor own discretion and exclude maintenance and uncontroversial edits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. It doesn't say anything that the second sentence doesn't already say. Now, if you want to add something that emphasizes that cleanup edits, as non-controversial, are normally acceptable, I'd support that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to see a stronger reminder of what is and isn't allowed to come up when you seek edit the fully protected page. At the moment, there's only a note saying "WARNING: This page has been protected in accordance with the protection policy so that only users with administrative rights can make edits." Something like "Administrators are reminded that they should only make uncontroversial edits or those with clear talkpage consensus", should be added, preferably flashing on and off in some fluorescent colour. (Okay, the last bit is a joke) --Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Would support but for the word "uncontroversial". It might be obvious to some but, looking at the OP, is doesn't seem to be obvious to everyone. I would add that I don't think "uncontroversial" edits by admins should be allowed either. If the article is locked from editing then it shouldn't be edited except where necessary to remove obvious vandalism etc. Admins do not have special editing privileges (okay maybe technically they do, but you get my drift) and should not be working on locked articles. --FormerIP (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support, but have no confidence that it will make any difference. If we could trust admins to behave decently it wouldn't be needed, as this blatant abuse of admin tools to edit through protection would not have happened. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support, but it doesn't actually change the policy, only how it's expressed: the policy is already that admins should only make uncontroversial edits or those with consensus. If it's necessary to make it this explicit then go ahead and add this sentence, but any admin should be aware of this policy and that edits to a fully-protected page is not at an admin's discretion, since admin discretion on content matters is no greater than that of any other editor. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I'd rather see the clause "or if the change is uncontroversial" removed. The place to decide whether or not an edit is controversial is the talk page. If it is uncontroversial, then consensus will be achieved very quickly. If consensus isn't achieved, then by definition the change is controversial.MoreThings (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The point in allowing uncontroversial changes is that it applies to removing BLP violations, anything which is blatant vandalism, correcting typos, and anything else which would be considered "minor" anyway. There's no point in wasting time by asking for consensus on whether or not "trhough" should be changed to "through" simply because the article is fully protected, for example; nor should we wait on consensus to remove a blatant BLP violation, copyright violation, or anything urge which requires urgent removal per policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And of course, any user giving any good-faith reason why such an edit was not uncontroversial, makes it controversial and the edit should be undone (preferrably by the user who made the change) pending consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent about that. I admit that it's hard to oppose changing "trhough" to the correct spelling, but there's also something disturbing about administrators making edits of that sort—unrelated to page protection, or to correcting things that must urgently be corrected, such as BLP violations—being able to do so while other editors are unhappy about not being able to edit at all. Unlike semi-protection, full protection should be done in the spirit of preserving the proverbial Wrong Version until a situation has been resolved. Seeing this discussion, I wonder if the proposal would actually make the problem worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the only sort of edit appropriate for an admin to make, can also be made at request by any editor using {{editprotected}} just as good-faith IP addresses can use {{editsemiprotected}} to request a good edit to an article semi-protected due to vandalism. Regardless of the result here, forbidding admins from editing protected articles except with consensus cannot override other policies in important cases such as removal of potentially libellous information per WP:BLP or removal of blatant copyright violations; page protection is meant to prevent problematic editing related to a dispute (or in some unusual cases to persistent vandalism, such as in the case of highly-visible templates for example), and making a blatantly uncontroversial change is both constructive and doesn't violate the principle of page protection; but I hasten to add that it really should be clearly uncontroversial: typos, blatant BLP or copyvios, that sort of thing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a clause that specifically allowed admins to fix BLP infringements. Anything else should be sorted out on the talk page. Just make a quick post:"I intend to fix these typos..."; wait a few mins and make the change. Same thing with blatant vandalism, though I don't quite see how a page containing that would be protected in the first place. "Uncontroversial" is too woolly. MoreThings (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
But why waste the time of other users just to get approval to change a blatant typo? Uncontroversial isn't woolly: just like anywhere else, uncontroversial means an edit which no one else is likely to object to in good faith, and if someone else does object, then it should be accepted that that means it is controversial. By the time a user is familiar enough with policy that they become an admin, they should be well aware of what should be considered "uncontroversial". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Admins should be allowed to make changes to correct policy violations. Other than that, everything should be sorted out on the talk page. There's no huge hurry to fix the odd typo, and we're not talking about a delay of hours here; we're talking about a few minutes. All of the typos could be fixed after a single post to talk. That slight delay is the lesser of two evils.
In making this edit the admin clearly thought he was editing through protection. If one admin feels that "uncontroversial" allows that kind of edit, then it's reasonable to suppose that other admins interpret the policy in the same way. So the policy permits that an article remain protected while admins float in and out making uncontroversial edits as the story unfolds, and as other editors stand by, looking on. An article could be developed entirely by admins! That's a wonderful prospect, of course, and as admins are very trustworthy, and know all the rules, they would never put anything in an article that doesn't belong in it. Yet somehow that doesn't quite seem like the right way forward.
So what happens if we remove the "uncontroversial" clause? Well, protected now really does mean protected, as it should-—it doesn't mean protected except for admins. We also find there is a more general and pressing desire to downgrade the protection. This leads to a quicker return of non-admins, some of whom can edit almost as well admins, and it allows the latter to get back to their important work at an/i, and the like. MoreThings (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Just an observation. Today was a highly unusual situation in which there was something of an emergency situation going on. The reliable media widely and incorrectly reported that she had been killed, but there were other reports that she had been rushed to the hospital, etc. As far as I can tell, everything was really handled quite well here. There was thoughtful discussion, there was some sensible editing, there was protection of the article which surely cut down on the amount of accidental error. We can be proud of the overall situation. If there was a bit of WP:IAR going on, I say good, that's what IAR is all about: getting the job done well in unusual circumstances. :-) So we might or might not want to adjust protection policy to reflect this kind of case, I have no opinion really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The reliable media widely and incorrectly reported that she had been killed. How sure are you that this is the case, though? There's talk of retractions on the talkpage, but I was on the BBC news website at the time and I'm pretty sure she was never declared dead there in the first place. I think she was declared "shot in the head at point-blank range", then people jumped to conclusions, then she was declared alive.
Whatever the facts are, I don't think its possible to judge from the talkpage, and the talkpage is bound to reflect a confusing situation in any high profile case of death by Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It was the case. NYT, CBS, WSJ, AFP, AP, NPR all reported she had been shot and killed. NPR then changed it to "conflicting reports" and CBS et al. began reporting her staff and a hospital official said she was in surgery and then said she survived. I wrote the corresponding Wikinews story and have been following this since it broke. She was certainly reported by most "reliable" news sources as having died. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well if that was the case it explains a little bit of confusion. But it doesn't explain, IMO, extended reversion wars and admins continuing to just generally work on a locked article, which is what seems to have happened. Surely admins ought to abide by the general spirit of a lock? --FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, hence this discussion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support idea, would like better wording. Obviously anything controversial should not be done by an admin without consensus. It should be clear, though, that minor edits (fixing templates, copyediting, etc.) are fine if they are not the subject of an ongoing dispute and that BLP concerns (such as removing claims of death and possibly defamatory information that a source has retracted) may be removed first (unless there is clear, strong consensus to keep it in) and consensus for readdition established later. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is to have Wikipedia purposely be 24 hours behind. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Would this be a good thing that one must wait 24 hours? Hakkapeliitta (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When even Jimmy Wales comes to Wikipedia instead of Wikinews to get the latest information, I think that ship has sailed. Powers T 03:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No, forcing us to be 24h behind is just a needless limit which will complicate things tenfold. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Personally, I think administrators editing through protection should presumptively lose the bit - and if for some reason this basic rule hasn't occurred to them, we may start thinking about making passing an (open note) test mandatory before getting a sysop bit --Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The gauntlet known as WP:RFA is not enough? –MuZemike 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently not. Perhaps they're placing the wrong emphasis.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this? On a quickly changing in-the-news BLP article, the most important thing was to "get the article right". That was done as well as could reasonably be expected, and the page protection helped with that. So what if some of the more trusted editors, aka administrators, got to edit the article while us poor plebes were unable to edit? The important thing was that a highly visible BLP article was correctly handled. Congratulations, First Light (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There were issues with the article that weren't being handled in a timely manner because the editors who noticed them couldn't edit the article and the administrators who could edit the article weren't reading through the fast-moving talk page. For instance, the "Electoral history" section of the article had broken formatting prior to today's events, and even after there were many eyes on the article it didn't get fixed for hours. That sort of thing is the whole reason we like to let everybody edit our articles, because one of them will really want to fix the trivial stuff. I'm the first person to say that we must get reported deaths absolutely right, and today shows why, but that doesn't mean that every reported death is a reason to freeze the article in place. Even if it were, much of the dead/not-dead churn cam while the article was fully protected. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this was a common case of "every reported death". It was arguably the biggest news story of the last few months in the U.S. Admins should have done a better job reading the talk page, I agree. But I can't imagine that these issues would have been handled better if the page was left unprotected. All things considered, I still think congratulations are in order. First Light (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and I'd love to see something go even farther and say only edits to revert vandalism or correct basic factual BLP information be made; such as dead/alive, POI/suspect, alleged crimes until proven innocent, etc. If admins can't be reasonable to that low a logical level there needs to be a "super-duper protect" mode of some sort. Wikipedia is not a news source, we have no time limit, and I can't ever see the need to make substantive edits on a "breaking news" matter. At the Fort Hood Shooting edit warring incident I asked for (and got for 72hr) full protection for a yet-to-exist page for the alleged shooter (was a redirect) just to avoid a BLP disaster before facts were known. If it were up to me, we'd always be that cautious on BLP, but I can appreciate that this is a minority viewpoint. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Also a comment: Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an online news source, and not every article needs to be "up to the minute". Some time spent waiting for events to settle down would have avoided some of today's problems -- and that time can come during the discussions to determine consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah go ahead and add the sentence, I don't see anyone objecting or likely to object. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - has anyone read the second sentence, which says virtually the same thing? If people feel like the pre-existing policy is not working, we should discuss modifying the sentence and not add it a second time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous Is already in the second sentence. Debresser (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - make the prohibition emphatic - we had far too many admins acting as super-editors on this article today. Exxolon (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That is already policy, as noted by Chase me. Restating it does not hurt, but does not help much either. The problem is that the policy is not enforced. Edits that violate it are abuses of administrator tools and should be sanctioned accordingly by the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  10:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As discussed above, this sentence ends up being redundant with the existing second sentence. And thinking about the discussion here, I've come to the conclusion that the proposed new sentence at the end would actually have an effect opposite to what is intended: instead of discouraging edits, it gives a pass to someone saying "yeah, but I didn't think it was substantive". I'm OK with leaving the paragraph as it is. Alternatively, one could better achieve the intended effect by adding, at the end of the second sentence: "; otherwise, no edits should be made." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'm supporting the proposal, but I'd actually prefer tryptofish's suggestion since it has the same effect and is simpler. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'm also supporting the proposal, but I like this wording more as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd change the boldface to say a clear consensus to do so. Or change the original to bold. Bold is good. Looks official. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well then you bold, I'll revert then we can discuss. (I won't revert, though. It's a good idea. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose after reading through the comments; I believe Tryptofish is correct; the proposed addtion gives admins more leave than the existing text, which is the wrong direction. Warren Dew (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, redundant. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary, and noting Tryptofish's note above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me to be utterly bizarre that an admin could believe they have special dispensation from the community to edit a protected article on their own initiative. While I accept that these edits were made in good faith, they demonstrate a need for a clue level adjustment. The policy already says everything it needs to and we don't need further edits to it. What we might need is a programme of coaching and support for admins who can fail to grok this.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the implication is that admins feel that policy can be ignored, and so admins need special rules. The policy wording is clear enough that modifications should be discussed first, and only implemented after consensus has been formed. I don't think it is appropriate to go through all our policy document to make special announcements that the rules also apply to admins. Of course policy applies to admins. That admins are not always aware of all policies is human nature - pointing to relevant policy should be enough. If an admin then wilfully and deliberately ignores policy in a harmful way, a trout slap is in order, but if an admin deliberately ignores policy in line with WP:IAR, for the better good of Wikipedia, such as substantially editing a fully protected article without first gaining consensus in order to remove clearly problematic material, that is fine. And in fact I would support such a statement being added. Such as "Where a protected article contains harmful material, an admin may make substantive edits to remove such material without first gaining consensus, provided the admin leaves a note explaining the action." SilkTork *YES! 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would have to be written very differently, because often it's appropriate to fix an article you've protected, e.g. because of BLP issues, or where contentious material of another kind is unsourced. Articles sometimes have to be taken back to stubs during protection because of sourcing issues. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's important to make the rules clear and unambiguous. I also think it doesn't hurt to say the same thing in two different ways, which this proposal does. I support it. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative wording

Based on the last several lines of the discussion above, I suggest this alternative wording, again with the proposed changes in bold:

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the proposed change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page; otherwise, no edits should be made. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the Editprotected template on the talk page.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not needed. Adding the word "proposed" is trivial, but the addition "otherwise, no edits should be made" is simply superfluous. This is a guideline for admins, not a How-to page for imbeciles. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    The concern is that admins have recently failed to follow this policy, and the hope is that making it crystal-clear will remove any possible excuse for doing so again in future ("I have a different interpretation of the wording of this policy", for example). Not sure how likely it is to make a difference given the extremely low frequency with which admins are actually sanctioned or even warned for violating policy, but it's worth a try. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In a fashion, I actually agree with Debresser, sort of. As I said above, I would be OK with leaving the policy as is. And I certainly do not wish to imply that anyone is an imbecile! But the fact remains that, in the recent incident, some people whose intellects are most certainly not in question did seem to have views of full protection that were at odds with what most participants in this discussion have said it actually is. Wouldn't it be helpful (not patronizing, but helpful; not needed, but not harmful either) to spell it out, so that it's absolutely clear? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that my opinion is that it is not needed. In the alternative form, I would not oppose the proposed addition. I do think that admins who do not understand the way policy is to be applied, should be demoted immediately. Wikipedia, as any system, consists of writ and practice. Any admin who does not know both, is a liability. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, it sounded as though you were essentially opposing, so thanks for clarifying that. But, wow, I'm just suggesting making the policy more unambiguous, not drumming anyone out! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, per WP:KISS, if we really need to add that too, we might as well leave it as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect a bit of the change in direction in this discussion may have been due to a conflation of "controversial" and "substantive". The current wording of the policy means any amendment needs to be proposed on the talk page. But if the proposal is non-controversial, the policy says an admin can edit it in without waiting for consensus to form. Why then couldn't an admin rely on WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to edit through his or her own non-controversial change to the article without proposing it first? The purpose of this proposal was to clarify that those kind of edits aren't actually acceptable.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually like the idea of clarifying that, which is why I proposed the alternative. Since it's probably largely my fault :-) that the discussion changed direction, I looked back at what I pointed out about "yeah, but I didn't think it was substantive", and it seems to me that the same concept applies to "yeah, but I didn't think it was controversial". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd also add that the use of the word "should", not "must", in the second sentence could also be a factor in leading admins to a non-bureaucratic approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean the first sentence, rather than the second? If so, perhaps that single-word change, of "should" to "must" in the first sentence, would be the best way to go. I'd support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we should ever use "must" on a WP policy unless there is very good reason to do so. We need to make it clear enough that both controversial and substantive changes should be proposed on the talk page, by admins and non-admins, while recognising there will be circumstances where that bureaucracy is inappropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've thought that over, and I don't think that this wording presents a problem in that regard, at least not to any greater extent than does the existing wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The bolding is only there to show what is added. I wouldn't actually include it on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


  • It looks like some time has gone by, and discussion here has quieted down. It seems to me that there has been some support for the proposals here, but not enough to justify changing the policy page. Let me suggest that it's time to move on, but perhaps administrators should give some thought to being sensitive to the issues raised in this discussion, when editing protected pages in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Something needs to be done about this, even if we don't use the exact wording proposed. I was rather upset by this admin edit of a protected page over a year ago. I agree that the change made wasn't related to the dispute that caused the protection. However, non-admins were prevented from making further updates to this massive edit. Many admins just don't get it. There needs to be a policy we can point to to tell an admin that their action is inappropriate. The edit in question was discussed here in the second to last thread in the section. The message I got was that the rest of us just don't matter. I agree with SlimVirgin that sometimes admin edits are needed, but this should be the exception. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2011 (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.

Edit request from Francesc Puig, 12 March 2011

{{Edit semi-protected}} At the end of the article it states:

"The hourly radiation within the plant was measured at 1,045 μSv,[citation needed] which is equal to the permitted exposure limit for single person over one year.[39]"

That exposure limits mentioned are those considered for general public, not for exposed workers. The limits for professionally exposed workers range from 20 mSV to 50 mSv a year, so between 20 to 50 times greater than the hourly dose mentioned. Usually 20 mSV are considered as the yearly average over 5 years, not being allowed to exceed a total of 100 mSV during this period, with a 50 mSV limit in just one year. Therefore it should say:

"... 1,045 μSv, which is between 20 to 50 times below the yearly allowed dose level for nuclear power plant personnel (20 - 50 mSv), being also equivalent to the yearly dose limit for the general public due to nuclear activities according to current regulations (1 mSv). As a reference, deterministic health effects due to acute radiation exposure cannot be found below a threshold of about 500 mSv."

NOTE: The text to be removed and the one that should replace it are highlighted in bold.

Not done: Wrong page? —GƒoleyFour— 14:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mobile download list is really old

Angry Birds has crossed the 100million mark (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-03-15-angry-birds-reaches-100-million-downloads) Fruit Ninja has passed the 20million mark (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/03/fruit-ninja-surpasses-20-million-total-downloads/)

Please update the page or kindly unlock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.48.76 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we semi-protect talk pages?

I don't believe talk pages should be semi-protected. This makes it impossible for unregistered users or new users to voice their opinion on a page. I know it only takes 4 days; however, I think it is unnecessary to semi-protect any edit pages. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So if an IP hopper was rapidly posting blatant BLP violations to a talk page, you would argue it should be left unprotected? Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It should only be done in rare circumstances where there is a demonstrable pattern of ongoing disruption that cannot be solved by blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That's right. But those occasions do occur, so we don't want a guideline saying never semi-protect talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

...........Isn't it a bit ironc that the "protection page" is only semi-protected? It's pretty important, it should get the gold lock, not silver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.206.75 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Addition to move protection policy

I propose an addition to the move protection section of this policy. I suggest the following is added after An obvious exception to this rule is when pages are protected due to page-move vandalism.:

When move protection is applied during a requested move discussion the page should be protected at the location it was at when the move request was started.

Dpmuk (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason behind this addition is that several times I have seen admins protect the page at a location other than where it was when the RM was started. This creates two problems:

  1. The RM tag changes to suggest that the RM should be closed and I have seen this happen which effectively stifles the discussion.
  2. Editors get confused by what the discussion is about. We can't update the request as this would make all the existing comments not make sense but at the same time the situation is confusing to anyone wishing to comment.

The first could be solved by some more careful wording but even then people may still close it and it doesn't stop the second problem. This change will make requested move discussions much clearer (when protection occurs) and should simplify the discussion. Protecting the current version exists so that admins can act neutrally by simply procting what currently exists. This change would still allow that as there would still be no doubt where to protect the page and it would simply be following policy. Hence I see that this change will only be positive (by allowing simplier discussions). Dpmuk (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What about a case where there is a very recent undiscussed move from a long-stable title and the RM is to revert that move? Perhaps there are large numbers of broken links or the move was to an obviously incorrect title. They are the exceptions but they do happen. Station1 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an oft-given arguement that such a move back shouldn't need a requested move discussion as it would be the bold bit of WP:BRD and that in cases where admin assistance is required it should be dealt with as uncontroversial although this is not formalised. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I agree completely, and this is even mentioned as a possibility at WP:RM, but occasionally editors will start an RM anyway. Station1 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If we were to update the RM process and such RM requests were quickly closed and then done as uncontroversial I don't see this being an issue. Dpmuk (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting article talk pages

As of this writing, Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is semi-protected; the log states its due to vandalism (an insufficient reason for a talk page I would think) and earlier logged actions imply that the reason is related to several WP:Revision deletions NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) felt obligated to do. The policy's section on protection by namespace documents no consensus that article talk pages ever should be semi-protected. Is semi-protection sanctioned in such cases? If so, the policy needs updating, otherwise, I'd like to request that the semi-protection be removed (and have drawn NawlinWiki's attention to this request). Thank you. 68.165.77.24 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is clearly stated that semi can be used on article talk pages, so yes, there actually is a consensus. Quoting the policy: Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time. I won't comment on this particular case, though, apart from that using semi may be necessary on talk pages where there are a rush of vandals. Zakhalesh (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Also not commenting on this specific situation which I have not yet looked into, the important thing abut it is that it is something that should only be done in very rare circumstances, and for as short a period of time as possible to curb the problem. You are of course free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP or by asking the protecting admin, and failing that you could always register an account or even use {{editsemiprotected}} on your own talk page to make a request for someone to add your comments on your behalf. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Just took a closer look. There has been a persistent, nasty troll adding content to the page over the last few weeks. A few dozen edits have been revision deleted and are not viewable by the public but I can tell you it was not very nice stuff and they were quite disruptive and persistent. They posted section after section of trolling messages, up to a dozen at a time, they have been blocked several times and returned as sockpuppets each time, and had caused several short periods of protection already.. I would say that protection was an unfortunate but appropriate response to these attacks. Hopefully it will be unprotected soon and this troll will not return. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Annoyed

Moved from WT:AN 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a big deal. In fact it's a pretty small deal. But it's still a deal.

Because of a recent reform of the WP:SERVICE awards, a number of users are eligible to jump up a grade. So I'm going through all the users who do display a service award and, if they're eligible for a higher grade, replacing their award with the higher level (and dropping a note on their talk page).

(It's true that by custom and courtesy it's unusual for a user to edit another's user page. But they do belong to the project and if (as in this case) the effect is wholly benign and (as in this case) the effect is to replace incorrect information with correct information, it's OK.)

Except, for some people, I can't do this. These are admins who have set their user page to full protection.

In doing so, they are using their admin rights to avail themselves of a benefit that is not available to a regular user, and that solely for their own personal convenience.

You know, my userpage gets vandalized too. But I have to deal with it like anyone else. I don't recall voting Support on anyone's RfA on the ground that the guy deserves to not have to deal with reverting vandalism on his userpage.

I'd make an exception if the page is regularly subjected to a very high constant level of vandalism (and the admin, before making any edits to the page, asks another admin to unprotect it (or make the edits for him)); or it the protection is temporary, for a few days because of a spate of vandalism. These are both solutions that are available to any user.

But this is not what is happening here. These pages are protected under the because-I-can rule.

Meh. It's not a big deal. But it's this sort of thing that isn't particularly helpful, either. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a side comment, I actually would not appreciate someone bumping up my service award. I would prefer it if someone left a message on my talk page—were they so concerned—and from there, I would change the award and thank them for informing me of any changes in the requirements. Fixing a typo or something on someone's user page is one thing. But upgrading or changing a layout or an image could be considered rude, even if the intention was exactly the opposite. For me, personally, the service award is something I award myself. I don't make a million edits a day to try to get to the next level. I get there when I get there, and when I do, I want to appreciate the work I've done by giving myself a little treat: the service award. If you feel you should award someone anything, that's what barnstars are for. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I hear you. But my guess is that you're in an idiosyncratic minority, and I went with my best guess of greatest good for the greatest number, and no one has complained and a couple have expressed appreciation. Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Except reverting obvious vandalism, I'd say it's the height of rudeness to be changing other people's user pages for them, irrespective of whether you think your helping them out or whether your change is entirely benign. I have a service award on mine (infact it's the only thing on it), but I'm well aware that it means absolutely nothing at all, and nobody can do anything to me if its wrong, and I would be utterly wasting my time complaining if I found out it was now wrong due to not realising the levels had changed. If people can quite legitimately claim they are 'retired' rather than placing a factually correct 'indef blocked' template on their user pages, then the desire to strive to be 'correct' in this case sounds absurd. And to be utterly pedantic, I use a particular style of ribbon which isn't the standard, and I very much doubt you can decide for me what the one I would choose if I had changed level (which I haven't). The minumum you should be doing if this is really how you want to spend your time on Wikipedia (seriously?) is to simply leave the note on their talk pages, and that's it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I've had more barnstars (left in my talk archives where they belong of course) for messing with people's broken tables on their userspace without asking first than I've had for content creation. Each to his own. I'm sure an interesting sociological study could be made on the not-quite-communal, not-quite-private dynamic of userspace and cross-user editing of such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this can be solved by abolishing this "service award" crap? What kind of place is this? An encyclopedia or an army? (Same goes for "barnstars", by the way. This is neither a farm nor an elementary school. Or at least it shouldn't be.) I am not sure that we are so desperate that we need editors who rely on that kind of extrinsic motivation. Hans Adler 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I've moved from my initial distaste, and now I actually display one because I got utterly fed up of people who don't know how to check, from templating me or talking to me as if I didn't understand policy, when I'd made about 100 times more edits than them. You haven't got a hope of deleting it, but if you want to try.... MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
@Hans -
(Above quotation added by Xeno.) On the other hand, we don't have any statistics on the effect of extrinsic motivation. As in overwhelming the main page with cookie-cutter DYK articles that nobody wants to read, or plagiarism. Hans Adler 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved from WT:AN 13:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite the digression re service awards, the origin of the above thread seems to be that admins can protect their user pages while non-admins can't. Is that right? Why not just let anyone ask for their user page to be protected if they so desire? (Of course it means they won't be able to edit it themselves, but if they have no plans to do so, that's up to them.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course anyone can ask to have their user page protected, but as you say then they can't edit it, which is not too much good as most users probably want at least the option of editing their userpage without going the rigamarole of getting it unprotected and then reprotected when done. I would say that an admin should not protect his userpage except under that same conditions that would apply to any user: briefly, in response to a spate of vandalism, or if he basically never intends to edit it again. Anything else is of the nature of "Hey, I can protect my own personal userpage against vandalism and still edit it, and you can't, and how do you like them apples?" As I say, it's a very minor point and not worth fussing over, but I would say that "Admins should not have fully protected userpages except in extraordinary circumstances" would be a good rule. Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
How about "all editors should remember that userspace is not personal property", and "as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, page protection is not to be done lightly"? Aren't both of those existing and widely-acknowledged points of consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PC

The following sentence was added to the PC section, by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) [4]:

Pending Changes is now being applied retroactively in cases where semi-protection isn't required but some level of protection is needed.

I do not know of any consensus which supports this; I've seen no agreement for the current use of PC, anywhere. Therefore, I don't think PC should be used (right now) at all; it's all being discussed on WP:PCRFC - but, right now, there is immense confusion.

Comments, please? (Without wishing to spread the horrible "PC Debate", I just want the policy page to be reasonably correct, for the time being - so we know what we can and cannot do)  Chzz  ►  11:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's how it's being used on WP:RfPP - especially for more borderline unprotections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That does reflect current practice, which one could argue is an implied consensus, but as we all know there is no policy. Might as well just leave it until the current decision on removing it is made. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Of note the new wording is still in the article, I would rather it says there, but if you guys want to remove it feel free. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Given the position Chzz and myself are in regarding PC at the moment I'd rather someone besides the two of us made that call now that we've both said our piece. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. That's why I raised it here. I think it is very bad to have something added to policy without any consensus - but, given the heated nature of this debate, I'm certainly not going to edit it again myself. Thus, I also hope others will. Chzz  ►  17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly if no-one else is actually bothered by its inclusion then there is no good reason to remove it, that's another implied consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what use this sentence has. It'll probably be changed as soon as the ongoing RfC is over, and I'm not sure why it's necessary to make a statement that is not supposed to encourage or discourage PC's usage (per lack of consensus at this time) that simply states the current practice by some admins. I mean, what's the point of saying "people are using PC right now for pages that need protection but not semi yet" if it's not meant to be guidance? I think it should be removed or at the very least, clarified so people do not misinterpret it as a statement of guidance/consensus rather than what it really is—a statement of current practice based on no actual policy (which is why I wonder why it's in the protection policy ...). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted. The RFC is going to exact other way- showing a strong consensus for removing PC from everything it is being used on. Policy should not support broader use when the actual consensus couldn't be further from that. Courcelles 03:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
@Fetchcomms, I thought it was worth making the current practice the "policy" at least temporarily which is why I added it. Frankly the whole Pending Changes debate seems to have become a giant case of not dropping the stick which is really rather sad, but also means the RFC doesn't necessarily reflect what the community as a whole thinks about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"I thought it was worth making the current practice the "policy" at least temporarily which is why I added it." – absolutely not, this is the opposite of consensus and really a bit absurd to me. If the current practice is to go around throwing people of buildings that doesn't mean we should make it legal to do so while the authorities decide what to do. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
After re-reading the comments here it seems to be much more controversial to make this change than I thought. I should have removed it myself and I'm sorry for not doing so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear on this point: The current phase of the RFC is about what to do with pc right now, while we are working on the larger issue of whether to have it at all and if so how it is to be used. So the policy really can't reflect the results of this phase because this phase isn't aimed at setting a policy. Confusing ain't it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys need it :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the right place for this, see the articles talk page possibly
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Miquote on progressive income tax

The quotes purporting to show that Adam Smith favored a progressive income tax are completely untrue and in fact the opposite of his clear meaning in the passage excerpted.

Reading the full quote it's clear that Adam Smith was arguing that:

1) Taxes on revenue should be proportional (what we call a flat tax today). This is specifically NOT progressive.

2) Other taxes, such a real estate tax proportional to the value of a house, were tolerable even though such could have the effect of causing rich people who lived in more expensive houses to pay a greater share of their revenue in taxes than if a flat tax were the only source of revenue.

So somehow Adam Smith's advocating a flat revenue tax plus a flat property tax has been twisted to mean a progressive income tax when an accurate reading indicates the opposite and would place him in the far right wing of the U.S. Congress.

I find it really rather silly that the Wiki editors are trying to score an ideological point by inverting the meaning of Adam Smith as if he were some sort of a Biblical source of truth.

Obviously our knowledge and values have changed considerably since 1776 so it's hard to imagine why opponents of 18th century capitalism can't just be honest and argue sincerely that Adam Smith was wrong in advocating flat taxes.

Steve

P.S. The full quote is provided in the article and discussion on David Friedman's blog:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/03/misrepresenting-adam-smith.html

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.248.20 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist double "Category" prefix?

Feel free to participate in the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Blacklist double "Category" prefix?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

the book is useful for everyone that literate i hope this book is useful for reader and learning more informations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.140.31 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Coaching in Lyoto Machida vs. Randy Couture fight

After Lyoto Machida knocked out Randy Couture at UFC 129, he partially credited Steven Seagal with teaching him the kick, just as Seagal had taught Anderson Silva the (similar) kick that knocked out Vitor Belfort at UFC 126. I wanted to add this, but the page is locked. This is a link to the fight, but it's probably in violation of UFC copyright and hence not permanent. http://www.iviewtube.com/v/182586. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.164.208 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something crucial? Edit policy for IPs seemed different not long ago.

Well, I hope this is about the right place to ask this question. Maybe I am to blame for my fuzzy memory. But yet I am 95% sure that WP still had some centralized edit request system for unregistered users (aka IPs) on semi-protected articles. There were pages, sorted in descending order w/the current day being the uppermost link. IPs made their suggestions and if the edit was a good one, it was accepted by a registered user or administrator. One fine day, at a time when I was not much on WP, there must have been introduced these per-article edit requests. Can anyone enlighten me whether I was just dreaming away or not, please? :) -andy 77.190.46.135 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See {{Edit semi-protected}}. You put the template on the article's talk page, followed by your request, and theoretically a registered editor will come by to consider the request. Registering an account would seem to be way less trouble :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are thinking of WP:RFPP, which is for requesting page protection or unprotection. I don't recall there ever being a centralized place to make requests for specific edits. Just by way of checking I tried Wikipedia:Requested edits, for some reason that is a redirect to the admin noteceboard, which makes no sense to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Byerssm, 24 May 2011

Please change the following: 

"Serious research to test chiropractic theories did not begin until the 1970s, and is continuing to be hampered by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with organized medicine."

to the following: "Serious research to test chiropractic theories began in 1935 with the B.J. Palmer Research Clinic at the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa. The clinic was a million dollar investment and was organized into two divisions--a medical division and a chiropractic division. The medical division contained all the standard medical tests of the time and was used to establish a medical diagnosis of a patient's condition before the patient received chiropractic care. The chiropractic division administered treatment for the various conditions diagnosed. Treatment included passive modalities, chiropractic adjustments and physical rehabilitation. The Research clinic was used as a tool to unveil the effects of chiropractic care on the patient's condition and chiropractic care's impact on health. At the conclusion of treatment plan, the treatment results were validated by the medical division. Research continued in the B.J. Palmer research clinic until B.J. Palmer's death in 1961 and the results and findings of these patient cases were the substance of B.J. Palmer's publishing over this 30 year time-period. [1]

Byerssm (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the protection policy page. Please make edit requests on the corresponding article's talk page, in this case Talk:Chiropractic. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What they forgot to mention

The people that wrote this page neglected to mention that mars is named after the Roman god of war, because of red (the rust) being the color of blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamJacobFan (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

For the solid state no density is given in the table on the right. Here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/elements/boron/to/45/hf/ it says: 2.46 g/cm3 But this one seems to be omere reliable: http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/info/10681727_595.html 2.354(5) g cm–3 (293 K) I suggest to take the last value, or give 2.4 as the density at ambiant temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.39.174 (talk)

You two need to comment at the talk pages of the articles you want to edit; this page is unrelated. — Bility (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

plz change the link from krishnascience.com into krishnascience.info tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avadhutaraya (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request

What exactly is the policy when it comes to user pages/subpage etc, as this page seems to contradict itself by first saying pages "are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption" then saying "User pages may be semi-protected at any time upon request.", which seems to have been used lately for users to have protection placed on any subpages they want, despite usually being the only editor, see [5] for a few examples. So which is it? Any user can have any page in their userspace protected if they want it, or protection is only used when necessary?--Jac16888 Talk 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy was 'boldly' amended 6 weeks ago[6]. I'm not really a fan of the change, and prefer the previous long standing status quo of only locking out unregistered editors where there's either evidence of disruption, or at least some risk of it. Policy has always been a bit liberal with semi-protecting userpages, and subpages but not archives. But some of the more recent requests at RFPP since the change on this page could only be described as a complete waste of everyone's time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Since the change was made without discussion, I have gone ahead and reverted per BRD--Jac16888 Talk 15:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Just commenting - and I don't mind whatever the policy is - but, a) I've had my own archives fully-protected, because on several occasions, it's been easier to simply stop new users mistakenly adding comments on them (despite also having an edit notice). Lots of new users visit my talk page and the archives - so it's been useful.
I've also had pages such as, e.g. User:Chzz/contact protected - because that one is transcluded on quite a few user talks, and I don't want someone to mess with it.
Same for User:Chzz/demo/simpleref, User:Chzz/demo/namedref, etc.
Hence, for me, it's been useful to request protection. And if this sort of thing is OK, then perhaps the policy could be clarified - because according to the letter of the policy right now...well, OK I could make a case for "evidence of vandalism or disruption" on User:Chzz/demo/simpleref [7] but not e.g. User:Chzz/demo/harvref - so is that 'pre-emptive' and inappropriate protection?
I would think 'common sense' could apply? To avoid CREEP...some generic comment, perhaps, that userspace requests 'will be considered individually'. Or something.
However, if any of this is against policy, I'd be happy for my subs to change; it's just a lot of hassle to keep checking on them.  Chzz  ►  15:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Its a matter of taking cases seperately, rather than saying that anyone can have anything protected. You probably didn't need those page protected, but could make a case for them as pages that are transcluded a lot, same as we do for high-risk templates, I'm more concerned about editors deciding they need all of their sandboxes and userboxes and complicated userpage templates protected for no reason--Jac16888 Talk 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But it being a hassle to keep checking them, thats what your watchlist is for--Jac16888 Talk 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
My watchlist has considerably over 9000 items; plus, such 'demo' pages cause a bit of a problem even if vandalised for a short time. Yes, I appreciate re. editors messing about with such stuff - I really do; some types of user do that all the time (hopefully I'm not one of them!) - it's one of those cases where one would hope common sense, on the part of the admin assessing any request, could avoid the need for instruction creep though. IMHO. Chzz  ►  15:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This was kind of discussed before (see Annoyed...); it was pointed out that if admins can protect their own user pages on a whim, then other users should be able to as well. Personally I don't see any problem with this; surely we can trust each user to decide for him/herself what level of protection should be applied within his/her own user space, and not make a bureaucratic power game out of it?--Kotniski (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, some types of user (we know the type) will muck about with it, and cause unnecessary DRAMA. It's one of those problems, with 'levels of trust'. It reminds me of a similar recent discussion about the new "file mover" permission. An admin pointed out it should only be given to users with a need - ones who frequently work in file areas - and it shouldn't be dished out to just anyone who rarely moves a page (think kiddies seeking hats), but I pointed out that I'd just been granted it and used it one time, in helping a user, but would probably not use it again for months; and the admin kinda said "oh, not you, of course we'd trust you with it..." - you can see the issue. It's all about Common Sense, and the fact it's so scarce.  Chzz  ►  15:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me the point of that discussion was that admins shouldn't be protecting themselves on a whim, not that other users should be able to--Jac16888 Talk 15:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lemme have a stab at it; suggestion; change "=== User pages ===" to "=== Userspace pages ===", as follows;

Userspace pages

User talk pages

User talk pages should only be semi-protected when absolutely necessary to prevent disruption to the project, and only for the shortest appropriate duration.

On the rare occasion that user talks are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time, there should be an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from the main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.

Other userspace pages

User pages, and user subpages, may be protected to prevent disruption.

Requests from users to protect or semi-protect pages in their own user-space, with good reasons, may be considered individually.

Deceased users / Retired users Blocked users

These 3 sections to remain as l4, as current wording, under this heading

 Chzz  ►  16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the problem with just saying that any page in a user's own space (maybe not talk pages) will be protected or semi-protected at that user's request. Isn't it easier for an admin (I'm just assuming this is how it works) to click a couple of buttons to protect a page, rather than engage the user in an argument about it? If it's automatic, there won't be any DRAMA; if it's not, there often will be.--Kotniski (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem if we just said, "User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request." That's already the de facto policy, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with changing the wording to reflect this. Swarm X 18:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
User pages and subpages should not just be protected on requested, there should be a good reason for doing so, and when this page said they could be protected on request, users took advantage of it, requesting protection of all manner of subpages and whatnot for no real reason other than they wanted to--Jac16888 Talk 11:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What harm is caused by that, though? For example, would you say it's a good use of your (or my) time as an administrator to correct other administrators for protecting userspace pages without 'good reason'? Who cares, really? --causa sui (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
If a admin wants to protect someones userpages on request without good reason then they're free to, I'm not saying we should go around unprotecting all unnecessarily protected userpages and trouting the admins who did it, just that having it clearly defined in policy that anyone can have anything they want protected is a bad idea, since people used it to get things protected purely for the sake of having them protected--Jac16888 Talk 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
All right. I agree with Swarm then. Many admins already do this, and since we're not going to wage a campaign to stop them, it will be the case for the forseeable future that anyone can get a user page protected (other than talk) pretty much just by asking -- and there's no harm done by that. Policy ought to reflect practice, so putting this in the policy is reasonable. --causa sui (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
User talk pages shouldn't in general be protected so new editors can contact you, I think its reasonable to allow all other user pages to be protected at that users discretion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Causa you misunderstand what I meant, no we don't need to to go on a witchhunt telling every admin off because they protected a page unnecessarily, if they want to then fine, I'm saying that its not something that should be encouraged by making it part of policy. The whole point of protection is that it should be applied only when absolutely necessary, which should extend to userspace too. Nobody needs all 326 of their various subpages, menu templates, userboxes and whatnot protected, but make it policy that they can be no questions asked and that is what will happen, simply because they can. The only reason I brought this up in the first place was because in the month or so since that was boldly added to this page, there was a large increase in the number of subpages etc at RFPP with no justification other than "user request". The admin backlogs are big enough as it is--Jac16888 Talk 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
To make sure I have this right: your objection is that putting it in the policy would create a sense of entitlement among users expecting to have their protection requests honored by any admin and in a timely fashion, thus creating a stream of maintenance work for administrators to perform that is of dubious importance to the project? --causa sui (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That's probably my main objection yes, although its also because I really don't see why pages need to be protected without reason--Jac16888 Talk 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888 Talk 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, is it? --causa sui (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, its not. I genuinely believe that allowing anyone to request protection of anything with no justification is a bad idea. In the brief time it was in the policy I saw several editors requesting meaningless subpage after subpage be protected, you can see in the link I provided above that there are at the same time 3 userpages being argued about at the same time and that was just an example. I see nothing wrong with how it is at the minute, people can have things protected if they need them, if its not really important they can always nudge a sympathetic admin, but with no specific policy about it. Why anyway is it important that users can have all their subpages and userpages protected anyway? What does it solve? (what was this about btw [8]?)--Jac16888 Talk 02:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests on this talk page

IPs requesting edits on this talk page seems to be happening quite a lot. I think it means that the current template is misleading to many. OK, we can never achieve perfection, but I think there is room for improvement. Thoughts? 124.147.70.223 (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on language

I don't understand "whichever is shorter" after this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor banned from editing certain pages.

Will there be a way to set page protection so as to reject specific editors (blacklist) or restrict editing to one or only a select few editors (whitelist)? –BuickCenturyDriver 10:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Prophecies, 22 July 2011

What can I do to link my files to this article..I'm not allowed to edit this.I've uploaded my photoes to wikimedia commons. I want to be able to add photoes and do some minor edits. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Monastery_of_World_Peace,_Lumbini.jpg This is the photo i want to link or whatever is the wiki standard word for it...

Prophecies (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

REply on my talk page here with what page you want the image added to and I will do it for you. Otherwise in order to edit article's you need to be either confirmed or autoconfirmed. Additionally you can just move this entire section to the talk page of the article you want edited and changed the answered back to no. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

Can (or should) a user protect a article draft page once it is submitted for review and/or moved to mainspace? --Nathan2055talk 18:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by 'user'. Only admins can protect pages, and it's pretty rare that we'd protect an article outside of the mainspace (except user talk pages). Any user can request protection at WP:RPP, and each case is dealt with on its merits. Hope this helps, message me if you need more. GedUK  11:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Nathan2055talk 14:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection doesn't work?

I've just noticed that there seems to be something wrong with the semi-protection. The Amy Winehouse article is semi-protected, but still some unregistered users are able to do edits. Check the history for 2011-07-23 and 2011-07-24.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from these 3 minutes [9] when the page was unprotected, there have been no edits to the page from unregistered users on those days--Jac16888 Talk 01:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about article talk page semi-protected for quarter of a year

FYi. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about article talk page semi-protected for quarter of a year

FYi. Merrill Stubing (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

German-American has to go

Would whoever is responsible for the 'German-American' designation in the opening sentence please defend its usage? To me it makes absolutely no sense given Rockefeller's distant and tenuous ancestral links with Germany (via French refugees, no less). Was Rockefeller even aware that he was "German"? I'm guessing that he was not exclusively, or even predominantly German in his ancestry. So why identify him as a German-American? Seems more like matter of some editor's own nationalist pride or something. There must be literally hundreds of wiki bios for American with some kind of German ancestry, but none of them (not even Eisenhower) mention his German-American identity up front, or to the exclusion of the rest of his/or her ethnic background. Please explain the justification. Am I missing something? I've tried erasing it before, but it goes right back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd123 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make my request on the Discussion page of the "semi-protected" article... but the Discussion page is locked too. Please change the policy.

The [September_11_attacks] page shows up as locked to me (from an IP.) The discussion page implied that the article is only semi-locked against repeat vandalism from IP users. The discussion page even says (at the very top) "Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article."

But... there's a lock icon on the discussion page too, instead of an edit icon.

Clicking on either lock icon, takes me here. Where it says I should use the Discussion page to make my edit request, and that requests made here will be ignored. (Not to worry: all the pages exhort me to remain polite despite this.)

  1. I would like to request a policy change, saying that NO page can be counted as semi-protected, if the discussion page gets locked too.
  2. I'd also like to request that this page explain what process should be followed to request edits when both pages are locked.

After many more minutes that cannot be described accurately, due to requirements to remain civil, I finally found a link on the discussion page, pointing to RFED#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page, which... happily tells me what templates to use on the discussion page to flag my request for a minor edit. It too, doesn't actually say what you should do if the Discussion page is locked too. But I'll give that feedback there, along with my request.

Thanks,
173.206.132.10 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think unlocking the 9/11 discussion page is something that can be reasonably done - I presume they are locked due to continued vandalism - though it could be worth a try. What probably is a legitimate issue that we can solve fairly easily is the lack of policy clarity telling you where to make requests if the talk page and article are both locked, which I think is WP:RfPP - where I see you've made your request. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Right I've updated the edit notice to make it clear where to make the request. Is that better? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for:
  1. Adding the link to the article.
  2. Fixing up this entry with the "la" template
  3. Confirming that I guessed right, in requesting the edit here.
  4. Changing the template to link WP:RfPP.
What I was hoping, was that in this article itself, under the Semi-protection heading, right after it says: "Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. "
add
"If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit."


(When I clicked on the lock icon on the page, that's where it sent me, not this talk page, or anywhere with the template displayed. Only sheer stubbornness led me here & the protection request page. And lots of finger-crossing that I'd found the right place.)
Thanks,
173.206.132.10 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added the sentence to this article as requested - that seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've also clarified the section header. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Marking this as answered --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
That would have been a good idea :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bethnormandale, 25 August 2011

{{ semi-protected}} At the end of Niall Horan's information would it be possible to add that he is currently dating a fan he met on The X Factor tour, named Theo Rintoul. They've been dating in secret for the past few months.

Bethnormandale (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the notice at the top of this page, which also comes up when you attempt to edit here. This is not the place to request specific edits, you need to put this on the talk page of the article you want editied. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User Page Protection

Are you allowed to use the gray lock on user pages? 99.35.234.197 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. →Στc. 07:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection templates

Is there any occasion where a protected article does not need a {{pp-protected}} on it? →Στc. 08:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be suprised. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}


124.180.130.159 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've cancelled out the above request; it was blank and, almost certainly, it was in the wrong place. No idea what the IP user wanted changing; I'll ask.  Chzz  ►  06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A question...

If a page is fully protected, under what circumstances is it acceptable for an administrator to make unrequested changes that are likely to be uncontroversial? Though a specific example prompted my question, I'm just trying to understand when it's ok for an admin to make routine edits despite full protection preventing "regular" editors from making their own routine and uncontroversial changes. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the lead specify some types of protection?

Right now, the lead contains the following bulletted list of prtoection types:

  • Full protection prevents editing by everyone except administrators. Fully protected media files cannot be overwritten by new uploads.
  • Semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered contributors and contributors with accounts which are not autoconfirmed.
  • Creation protection prevents a page (normally a previously deleted one) from being recreated (also known as "salting").
  • Move protection protects the page solely from moves.
  • Upload protection protects the file from reupload, does not protect the file page from editing.
  • Pending-changes protection means edits are not visible to readers who are not logged in, until the edits are checked by a reviewer.

Is there a reason that the list does not include Permanent protection and Office actions? If not, I think they should be added to the lead. --Mondotta (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are not technical, but merely procedural protection levels.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

List of protected pages (proposal)

Is it possible to make a dynamically-updating list of all pages under each protection category? 66.185.65.246 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We already have one, Special:ProtectedPages--Jac16888 Talk 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012

I would like to edit this page.

Ghan0011 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Bmusician 05:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening statements

I feel the policy should start with statements of general principle - that we aim to have all pages open for editing, but sometimes for reasons of likely disruption we have to restrict this possibility, bla bla bla. Not go straight in with the technical details of what kinds of protection are available. I know the only people who can really apply this policy are the admins, but a lot of people are going to be reading it just to try to understand why a page they want to edit is not editable.--Victor Yus (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No one responded to this, so I had a go myself. Maybe someone can improve on it. I also removed the "nutshell" box, because it just said the same as my new first paragraph, and "should only be done in certain circumstances" is rather too meaningless for me. Victor Yus (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Page and talk page should not be protected at the same time

With this edit Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) removed a long established credo from the policy, i.e. that admins should not protect a page and its talk page at the same time. They refer to in their edit summary to a discussion from August 2011 (here) but that discussion does not support this edit. It just supports adding some info where people can make requests if both pages are protected. As such, I have undone this change. If someone disagrees with me, please explain why. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How often is an article talk page being disrupted enough to require protection when the article itself isn't being affected by the same sort of disruption by the same users? Anomie⚔ 11:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardly ever, I would imagine, but I don't think that's the issue. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Bongwarrior's edit clarified matters.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection due to edit-warring as the norm

As with full protection, administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. An obvious exception to this rule is when pages are protected due to page-move vandalism.

As protection due to vandalism is also common there is no reason to consider edit-warring the norm as reason for protection. Thus the above wording from the section on move protection (and a similar wording about uplod protection) should be changed tosomething like "When protecting due to edit-warring, administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current name. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Chiropractic: An Illustrated History. St Louis/US: Elsevier - Health Sciences Division. 1995. pp. 170–171. ISBN 13:9780801677359. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_13&oldid=1151039041"