Wikipedia talk:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection

Arbitration Enforcement

I'm not quite sure I agree with the section that consensus has formed that it shouldn't be applied unless there has been disruption. The citation is a relatively poorly attended talk page discussion. I think a better phrasing would be to point out that some people are opposed to applying it pre-emptively. I personally think there is an argument in favour of applying it pre-emptively as the prohibition applies regardless of the protection status: protection simply makes it easier for new editors to follow the rules here and not get in hot water. Since this is being cited almost as if it is a policy document, I think it should be worded a bit more clearer on this point. I don't think we should go out of our way to find articles to ECP, but when there is a good faith request for it under the enforcement provision, I also don't see the harm, and can see benefits to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked to make it clear that any admin can apply ECP in the Arab-Israeli conflict area at any time at their discretion, and also to make it clear that doing so without disruption is opposed by some editors. I've also removed the reference to BITE, because arguably ECP is significantly less bitey than a talk page message telling someone they aren't allowed to edit a page even though they have the technical ability to do so. Feel free to tweak the wording, but I think it is important to clarify what the policy actually is and then explain that there are different views on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of whether it should say "Some editors oppose applying ECP pre-emptively" or "Consensus has formed" or something else... Hmmm... well it has definetly also been discussed at WT:RFPP. That is what lead to the creation of this page. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Archive 9#ARBPIA3 500/30.

The point about BITE relates specifically to "applying ECP in response to good-faith editing by newer users". i.e. it doesn't mean applying it totally pre-emptively. Imagine if you were new to Wikipedia, part way through editing and article and then suddenly found you couldn't. Although talk pages messages can be BITEy, some kind of explanation would be nice... but you probably would have prefered it if you could just carry on editing.

I'm not going to revert the changes yet but I would like input from others, so I will post a message at WT:RFPP.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at those conversations as well. All poorly attended and not in line with the thinking of various administrators I have randomly asked for their understanding of here. I like Callannec’s explanation in one of the cited conversations: it should be applied liberally but not necessarily automatically. To me, that means I will apply it whenever a good faith request is made, regardless of disruption, because that is how the ArbCom prohibition reads: all edits are banned, good or bad, so enforcing it technically makes sense. On the flip side, I’m not going to go out of my way to find articles to AE ECP. If ArbCom wants to change the prohibition to get rid of 500/30 in its entirety, they can do that, but until then, enforcing it on request via ECP is in line with their decisions and the conversations cited. I think there is a difference between granting requests as a matter of course (which I support) and seeking out pages to protect that isn’t being made. Also, re: the BITE point, I’ve seen it argued successfully at AfDs that creation of pages in this area by new users is grounds for deletion with some even arguing G5. Compared to that, I don’t see ECP as bitey at all, and as described above think it can counter biting in many cases.TonyBallioni (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you saw those. Did you see the notifications as Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive 56#Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection and Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/10. The second of these will have appeared on the user talk page of a large proportion of admins. Yaris678 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not see the notification on the miscellaneous village pump, which is one of the least watched of the pumps. The newsletter all but advertised this as a summary of the policy, and wasn't really an invitation to discuss it. Regardless, a local consensus of a small group cannot form a policy consensus that goes against what is authorized by ArbCom: which is that any page in the area can be protected by any administrator on sight. Some admins personally may not like doing so, which is fine, but they cannot change what is allowed by ArbCom for other administrators who use their discretion in another way. I think it is important to make both points known here: what the actual policy is, and the view of some that it should in practice be limited. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris678, how do these look. Per my comments on the other talk page, I think the important thing here is to emphasize that administrators should act with discretion and common sense, as well as point out that no one thinks it worth the time to actively seek out pages in the conflict area to protect. I think it splits the baby nicely and allows for both a more liberal and a stricter application as needed in the individual circumstances, and would avoid having to go to ARCA, which I think would likely be more of a negative regardless of what the outcome was. I'm obviously open to any tweaks.
I'd especially like your views on if there is a better way to phrase the part I changed to some editors. It's sloppily worded, but it was the best I could think of at the time to avoid implying that a few small conversations had set a policy here, which is how it read before. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new words do soften the distinction from the old words slightly, and so are preferable in my view.

I am generally all in favour of calls for admin discretion. To give you a bit of context, which might explain why some admins might think the current words insufficient...

WP:RFPP has had quite a lot of requests on this topic and leaving scope for discretion too broad can lead to seemingly very similar pages having very different protection levels (none or ECP). This can cause confusion among editors and people wondering "why didn't you like my request?" or "why did you pick on that page?" Some of the requests appear to be POINTy "if you protected that, you need to protect ALL these"... this general behaviour is sometimes described as bad-faith, but for an individual request it is normally very hard to tell.. maybe they aren't trying to make a point, maybe they think they are helping by identifying pages that need protection... and we should assume good faith.

And so the area becomes a bit of a confusing mess, with accusations of bad faith... which is where harder rules can clean things up.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understood, and I’m certainly not trying to be the youngblood marching in saying I know better. If I had seen these conversations as a non-admin I’d have piped in here too, because I think having a set of firm rules here either way is just a bad idea. To give (real) examples I’ve encountered in the new pages feed of when either extreme would be bad:
A new terrorist attack or missle strike gets an article created and instantly has non-EC editors editing. None disruptive, but some sensational and it is far from clear the topic is notable. It will likely be at AfD within the hour. This is a clear case where preemptive protecting would be ideal (as would virtually any current event related article). A hard rule against it wouldn’t give flexibility in these circumstances.

Israeli holidays created by a new user celebrating major Israeli politicians and military leaders: likely shouldn’t be ECP’d on sight, even though they arguably fall within the scope.

Having read all the cited conversations last night, what I think the clear consensus was is that we don’t want people wasting time finding long lists of pages to ECP, and that it would be a waste of admin resources to do so. The questions of how to handle individual requests wasn’t addressed as much. Perhaps we could include the line used in the AN thread liberally but not automatically. I think this would be fair, something that everyone agrees on, and could be pointed to if people try to argue it. We could also include information that like all AW, ECP is an exercise of individual admin discretion, and may be applied differently depending on the circumstances. Essentially, I think this should be worded so we’re not boxed in either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris678, try this on for size. I *think* it hopefully addfrssss both of our concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, I have made some changes. I basically agree with what you wrote. Appart from the re-wording, the only thing that I have added is "There is a general consensus that administrators should [not] apply ECP to pages with only a tenuous link to the conflict." Yaris678 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with your tweaks. I think we've struck a good balance here. Thanks for the help, and I hope my being bold was helpful more than obnoxious. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it might have looked like you were being obnoxious at first, but we worked together to get a good solution, so that is the important thing. Yaris678 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
117.20.116.144 (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is making wikipedia useless for any politically-charged topic

It is painfully obvious that politically charged topics are taking the "point of view" of the far left.

The "protection" is to "protect" articles from deviations from far left ideology. Not even centrism, not even liberalism, but far left ideology. You can't even edit things for point of facts. In an attempt to enforce politically neutral POV, you have enforced a bias POV -- the gatekeepers are far left, and it shows.

We need to stop protecting these articles and remove any kind of centralized authorities. Otherwise, wikipedia will continue to be less and less useful for any kind of political research.

Even Larry Sanger (one of the creators of wikipedia) recognizes this. https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-founder-i-no-longer-trust-the-website-i-created/

I still use wikipedia for science research and other non-controversial topics, but I, along with millions of other people, now recognize this site as being corrupted and laced with propaganda.

It's sickening, and the people who are responsible know it -- it's standard postmodernist praxis.

@ 37.111.211.26 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this page 73.167.116.198 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how would removing protections do this, exactly? Protections are usually made to stop Wikipedia from being raided and spammed. If you have to resort to a never-ending edit war to get any of your beliefs up, then you might want to rethink your beliefs. Perhaps Conservapedia is more your style.

It's impossible to have a completely unbiased encyclopedia with any merit because it's just not reasonable to show all positions equally. For example, it'd be ludicrous to pretend that both sides of the flat earth argument are equally viable because one has much more scientifically-proven evidence than the other. In the words of a notable conservative, "Facts don't care about your feelings." LeftyTightyRightyLoosy (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement is apparently 501, not 500

I just passed 500 edits and noticed that when I had exactly 500 edits I did not get extended confirmed, but once I did 1 more edit and had 501, I did. I have two ideas about this - 1. Can a dev investigate fixing this? or 2. Should the documentation have a note mentioning this?

I don't even know if this is the right place to discuss it. But thought I'd start here. abcasada (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]