Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages.

To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.

If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit.
To request that a page be protected or unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
To suggest that a move-protected page be renamed, see Wikipedia:Requested moves.
To request that a deleted page protected against re-creation be re-created or restored, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.
For information about protecting the main page featured article or other featured content, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 60 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Counter-Vandalism Unit

This page is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Wikipedia. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.Counter-Vandalism UnitWikipedia:Counter-Vandalism UnitTemplate:Counter-Vandalism UnitCounter-Vandalism Unit articles

"Wikipedia:PDP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:PDP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 6 § Wikipedia:PDP until a consensus is reached. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy should define "inactive" administrator

WP:UNPROTPOL doesn't define what "inactive" means here: Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should, in the first instance, ask the administrator who applied the protection unless the administrator is inactive or no longer an administrator; thereafter, requests can be made at Requests for unprotection. To provide more clarity and less room for personal interpretation and disagreements on WP:RFUP, I suggest that we add a simple definition for this section that users can easily interpret such as no edits within the last 30 days. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about just link to active users list for who is active? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, but that would rule out administrators who are available, but not performing actions in the last 30 days. That would even include administrators participating in administration-related activities, but only via edits. It seems like the intent of excluding inactive administrators is to make sure the process is not delayed due to the unavailability of the protecting administrator which is why recent edits seemed like a good approach. It's pretty hard to have a significant number of actions without making any edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive is an option. After all, all the policy requires is that users ask first. Now that we are more aggressive about desysopping inactive administrators, it makes sense to favor asking in borderline situations. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, not a bad idea...but become an active administrator again? Frozen902 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but how do you become an active administrator again Frozen902 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frozen902: Carry out an action that non-admins cannot do - block/unblock, delete/restore, protect/unprot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the policy also specify the method of contact and how long users are expected to wait before making a request at WP:RFUP? Something like Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should first ask the administrator who applied the protection on the administrator's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer holds administrative rights, or has not responded within 1 week, then a request can be made at Requests for unprotection. would be clearer and also doesn't try to fit so much into a single sentence. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan I wonder how many people actually ask first or even read that. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I receive a fair number of unprotection requests on my user talk page so I think it might be higher than it sometimes seems. Also, the text could be clearer. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan Good to know. Not my experience, but then I'm not at all active at RPP so don't do a lot of protection. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly revised to be a bit less wordy: Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should first ask the protecting administrator on their user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer has administrative rights, or does not respond within a week, a request can be made at Requests for unprotection. I'd be fine changing "within a week" to something else if that seems too long or too specific. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think I would prefer being more explicit about the administrator's role, rather than using "protecting" to describe them. I suggest the following: Editors seeking to unprotect a page should first ask the administrator who protected the page, using the admin's user talk page. If the administrator is inactive, no longer has administrative rights, or does not respond within a week, then ask at Requests for unprotection. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I retained the more explicit phrasing and went ahead with the update. I also included a mention of reductions in protection level, but I left out the one week timeframe because there was limited discussion about that, and the main issue has always been users asking the protecting administrator first. The primary change is defining inactivity based on the list of inactive administrators. If anyone has any concerns, please let me know. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot proposal

This may be of interest to watchers of this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Bot to restore long-term protections after shorter-term higher protections expire. Please post any comments or feedback there. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]