Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic. |
 |
This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages. All substantial edits to a protected page should be proposed on its talk page, and will be implemented if a consensus is found to do so. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{editprotected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.
|
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Colours of the Locks
With my eyesight, I have trouble telling the difference between the grey, gold, and black locks. It would be beneficial to change the colours to more unique colours (orange, blue, yellow, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.231.93 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Pre-emptive creation protection
We have enshrined language stating "Administrators should not use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events." I see good reason for this as a general rule of thumb, but I think pre-emptive protection for short time periods may be a great drama and work reducer for certain types of clear cut cases. I delete many A7s of the stripe "John Doe is a 13 year old who likes to ride his skateboard and has a dog named Max!" There is no possibility that by protecting this before recreation for 24 hours we will be cutting off a legitimate article by the poster, and the possibility that coincidentally, an attempt to create an article by the same title about a notable person by a third party will be made during the short time span of protection is vanishingly small.
It plays out like this, some significant percentage of these type of articles are recreated, a newpages patroller needs to visit and tag, warn the user, and then CAT:CSD is expanded by that article, meaning that the same or a new admin must visit the recreated page. This may rinse and repeat a few times before salting occurs. Meanwhile the creator sometimes causes drama far afield because they keep getting these in-their-face warnings (vandalism to the taggers user/talk page for example). And not infrequently, instead of being salted, the creator gets escalating warnings until they are blocked, when salting would have nipped it all in the bud. Meanwhile, the vast majority of these editors who persist in recreation are never heard from again (they do not come back after the 24 hour protection to try again).
I was thinking of just starting to do this, but brought this here on the possibility there is some other good concern that is behind the prohibition. Note again, that we are only speaking of blatant cases.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think immediate no-warning blocks on creators of such articles (along with other vandals and blatantly unconstructive contributors) would be more beneficial. The chances of that person making any positive contribution to WP over the next few hours or days are at least as vanishingly small as the chances of the conincidence you refer to.--Kotniski (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks or the response Kotniski. Blocking new users in this manner would fly in the face of multiple explicit and tacit policies that have long-standing consensus and with which I agree. We only block immediately and without prior warning for extreme bad faith contributions (for example, vicious attack pages on living people). The example new page I posted about in the OP is not even vandalism, though it may be converted to vandalism if it is reposted after warnings. Carpet bombing new users with blocks isn't the answer:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could you clarify? Do you mean you find an A7 page, speedy it, then it comes back later? -Royalguard11(T) 00:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed that is the way of it. It is a cycle that plays out over and over as any admin who does a lot of CAT:CSD patrol can tell you. An article is tagged for speedy deletion-->creator warned-->article deleted-->recreated-->tagged and warned again-->recreated-->tagged and warned again-->recreated and so on, until, somewhere along the way, one of a number of things happens: the creator gives up, the article slips through the cracks, the user is blocked, or the article is salted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- So can you explain why you want the "article is salted" option to be moved forward, but not the "user is blocked" option? The two changes seem to me to be more or less equivalent in terms of the degree to which they amend current policy. If we can do one, we can do the other (do both, as far as I'm concerned). --Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking a user is in no way equivalent to protecting an article against creation and there certainly isn't an equivalency with respect to the extent they amend policy. The issue I am addressing is, as far as I can tell, one of first impression, directed at one prohibitive line in policy which has no explanation about a subject (creation protection) that wasn't even available until earlier this year. When and when not to block users, by contrast, besides being a divergent subject, is extremely well-defined, long-discussed and there is overwhelming consensus against the actions you proposed above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just for my information, then, since you said you agreed with this consensus, could you explain the reasons for it? I've always found it weird that WP allows itself to be trolled and disrupted to the extent it does; I guessed it was a hangover from some past time when we were more desperate for contributors and had no great problem with vandals. (I'm not opposing your proposal about salting, by the way, just trying to understand why we don't adopt what to me is an equally logical solution.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not totally in the other camp. I hear you. We do have too much leniency for blatant vandalism. A person who replaces the content of an article with fuck doesn't need four warnings before being blocked. But vandalism is very much about intent. That person replacing content with expletives, naughty bits, adding intentionally false information, etc., has malicious intent; we know what they're about immediately. Even some of them reform and become valuable contributors though that's rare. But the person I posted about in the OP hasn't shown us they are a vandal at all (yet)—just (somehow) clueless of that this site is an encyclopedia and what that entails. Many of them can and do get the idea. And many of them are young and may become useful contributors when they grow up a bit if they aren't soured on the site. Blocking such users on sight would create a hostile atmosphere. However, stopping them from recreating an article on a clearly unsuitable topic by preemptively blocking the title stops them in their tracks without the need for any blocking, warnings, all the theatrics. And those who don't try to create the article again won't even know the article is protected against recreation because if they don't try to recreate, they won't get redirected to the screen which says they cannot.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just for my information, then, since you said you agreed with this consensus, could you explain the reasons for it? I've always found it weird that WP allows itself to be trolled and disrupted to the extent it does; I guessed it was a hangover from some past time when we were more desperate for contributors and had no great problem with vandals. (I'm not opposing your proposal about salting, by the way, just trying to understand why we don't adopt what to me is an equally logical solution.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking a user is in no way equivalent to protecting an article against creation and there certainly isn't an equivalency with respect to the extent they amend policy. The issue I am addressing is, as far as I can tell, one of first impression, directed at one prohibitive line in policy which has no explanation about a subject (creation protection) that wasn't even available until earlier this year. When and when not to block users, by contrast, besides being a divergent subject, is extremely well-defined, long-discussed and there is overwhelming consensus against the actions you proposed above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm don't remember the salting policy changing recently, but I would say that what you describe would qualify. What you describe isn't preemptive. Preemptive would be choosing a random page you think will get created and salting it. If a page is created, deleted, created, deleted, then it would probably qualify for salting at that point. I think after one would be a bit extreme unless it seems to be part of some pattern. I remember it being very common after 3, and you can apply it after 2 in most cases (I can't think of any exception at the moment though). In my opinion it means deleted any way, so it doesn't have to go through any process and CSD is enough. I know that's what I did.
- So I'd say after 3 create-speedy deletes you have the green light to salt. 2 you can probably get away with too. 1 I would tread cautiously. I think you're just misunderstanding what "preemptive" means; it means choosing a title with no history and protecting. Anything with a history would not be preemptive. -Royalguard11(T) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Before about January of this year we didn't have the ability to protect redlinks. There was a software change which enabled such action. The section on creation protection thus didn't exist before then because the subject wasn't yet born (I actually was the first to add detail on the software change to the policy page). Sure, truly "preemptive" would be salting a title that never existed, deleted or otherwise. What I am using preemptive here to mean is preemptive against recreation In that sense, preemptive is exactly the right word. Anyway, forget whether the word is a misnomer here or not. The point is that the section states that we should only protect where there have been multiple recreations. But that grew out of a time when when we didn't have the ability to easily protect redlinks for short periods of time and when doing so left an article by the title cluttering the encyclopedia, which isn't the case with creation protection. You have echoed back the policy but not addressed the example I gave and why the policy should not be modified for such circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about what I did when there was no creation protection. I interpret "preemptive" to only apply to pages with no history at all (never been created, deleted, or anything). If preemptive meant anything else, it would forbid the very protection it's talking about. I'm guessing you mean the example at the top there, and I already gave a response. 1st time you just delete, second time you delete and salt (create-protect, whatever you want to call it). I don't believe that we should protect after just one creation because that encompasses every CSD article. We don't semiprotect every time an article gets a little vandalism. We don't create protect every A7/G1 page. If it's recreated, then it's a good idea to create protect. -Royalguard11(T) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No it does not encompass every CSD article. We are really talking past each other. I took pains to point out that the issue is about a specific subset of articles and only that specific subset which I gave an example of. The example article has no possibility of being recreated with better content that would address the reason for deletion, which we know by context. This would not encompass most A7s or even most G1s. An article that fails to state the subject's importance can be reposted with a better assertion of importance, sources, etc. Some G1s may be a half-formed test, written garbled but amenable to a repost with real content. In either case, it would a very bad idea to create protect these without multiple recreation. Referring to immediate protection of existing articles as an analogous action is even more off topic. This is specific to creation protection of an article created once that is patently improper and by its context, will not be rehabilited in a subsequent posting, and no one else will be trying to create an article by that name so collateral damage is not an issue. You say "1st time you just delete, second time you delete and salt." That isn't even the practice. Usually we wait longer before creation protecting. In any event, you're again echoing what you believe the practice is, without addressing in any way why it should not be varied under the particular circumstances presented.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was talking about what I did when there was no creation protection. I interpret "preemptive" to only apply to pages with no history at all (never been created, deleted, or anything). If preemptive meant anything else, it would forbid the very protection it's talking about. I'm guessing you mean the example at the top there, and I already gave a response. 1st time you just delete, second time you delete and salt (create-protect, whatever you want to call it). I don't believe that we should protect after just one creation because that encompasses every CSD article. We don't semiprotect every time an article gets a little vandalism. We don't create protect every A7/G1 page. If it's recreated, then it's a good idea to create protect. -Royalguard11(T) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Before about January of this year we didn't have the ability to protect redlinks. There was a software change which enabled such action. The section on creation protection thus didn't exist before then because the subject wasn't yet born (I actually was the first to add detail on the software change to the policy page). Sure, truly "preemptive" would be salting a title that never existed, deleted or otherwise. What I am using preemptive here to mean is preemptive against recreation In that sense, preemptive is exactly the right word. Anyway, forget whether the word is a misnomer here or not. The point is that the section states that we should only protect where there have been multiple recreations. But that grew out of a time when when we didn't have the ability to easily protect redlinks for short periods of time and when doing so left an article by the title cluttering the encyclopedia, which isn't the case with creation protection. You have echoed back the policy but not addressed the example I gave and why the policy should not be modified for such circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- So can you explain why you want the "article is salted" option to be moved forward, but not the "user is blocked" option? The two changes seem to me to be more or less equivalent in terms of the degree to which they amend current policy. If we can do one, we can do the other (do both, as far as I'm concerned). --Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed that is the way of it. It is a cycle that plays out over and over as any admin who does a lot of CAT:CSD patrol can tell you. An article is tagged for speedy deletion-->creator warned-->article deleted-->recreated-->tagged and warned again-->recreated-->tagged and warned again-->recreated and so on, until, somewhere along the way, one of a number of things happens: the creator gives up, the article slips through the cracks, the user is blocked, or the article is salted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No Protection
What is this segment for, seems pointless, also why the link to the word NO's disambig? Ironically this page is protected so I can't remove >_< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialwords (talk • contribs) 08:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've relocated this section from where it was incorrectly placed. To reply to your concern: the segment in question was the result of vandalism, which has now been reverted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 09:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, it hasn't been reverted. I still see it where semi-protection was previously. 75.158.140.239 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New protection templates and categories
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#New_protection_templates_and_categories where I proposed to use new protection templates and categories. Cenarium (Talk) 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protection of talk pages
An administrator recently told me that admins should not protect the talk page of a user they have blocked. I would like to know if that is true or not. For instance, if a user has already posted two or more unblock requests which have been declined, can the blocking administrator then remove further unblock requests and protect the page to prevent abuse? I believe this should be possible because an administrator has the option to protect a user's talk page at the time they place a block, when circumstances warrant. Blocked users see a screen that tells them how to appeal a block via email. Access to their talk page is not necessary to request an appeal.
In any case, whatever the consensus may be, if there is some sort of restriction on protection, it should be stated clearly in the policy. Currently the policy does not include any such restriction. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems moot. Adminsitrators have the discretion to turn off the "tick" of "user may edit their own talk page" when blocking, so one could just reblock with that tick marked off, no protection necessary. Also, blocking a user does not amount to having a dispute with that user. I see no inherent conflict with this at all, and I can't see where any other admin could claim that it would be inappropriate. Disruption is disruption; if there is any conflict of interest in protecting the talk page, then said conflict could have only existed when the block was implemented. If the block was a good block, the protection should be an allowable protection... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an accurate description. What I objected to was Jehochman intercepting (i.e removing) a block appeal of one of his own blocks. If the appeal needs to be removed then that's fine but it should be left to an uninvolved admin. That's the whole point of appeals. Sarah 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. My understanding is that users get two block appeals. Once those are rejected, further appeals are considered an abuse of process and anyone can remove them and protect the page to prevent disruption. I specifically invited the user to file appeals via email, which they did do. Carcharoth received such an appeal and communicated with me about it around Dec 14. I believe we should avoid excessive bureaucracy, and two block appeals (three actually) are quite enough I think. In any case, next time I'll leave the third unblock request in place to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Jehochman Talk 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- As the blocking admin you shouldn't be the one reviewing unblock requests, but if they have been denied by two other admins then I'd say asking for more would be an abuse of process. If two other admins essentially endorse the block by denying unblock I don't think it matter who's closing future requests. As for protection of talk pages of blocked users, it's done all the time. Usually you protect the talk page so that it expires at the same time as the block. -Royalguard11(T) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- In this case there were two unblock requests, one denied by MangoJuice, and one denied by Jayron32. I was the blocking admin. A third unblock request was posted. I removed it and protected the page, leaving a note explaining what I did and inviting the user to pursue further unblock requests via email (which they did do) or via the Arbcom (which I have now done). At the time it seemed like removing the third request and protecting the page was a straightforward application of policy that anybody could do, but since Sarah has expressed concerns, I have stated that I'll not remove any unblock requests in that situation again (unless a consensus develops that such removal is acceptable). Jehochman Talk 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. All I was looking for was a reasonable acknowledgment so I appreciate that and as far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved. It's true that a long time ago the unblock decline template said that users were only entitled to use the unblock template a limited number of times per block per year (two or three, I forget which now) but that was removed a long time ago (a year ago, possibly more) in favour of the more general current wording: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.". We changed it because the fixed limit thing was never supported by policy and I don't think it is now either. I don't think the appeal policy WP:APPEAL says anything about how many appeals a user can make and who may respond to the template in such cases, only more generally: "Requests for unblocks should be reviewed by administrators other than the one who administered the block." So I don't agree there is any fixed numerical limit but rather application of common sense - i.e. if someone is using the template disruptively then their page can be protected. However, I also feel it's common sense, and supported by policies, that the blocking admin may leave notes and comments for reviewing admins and participate in any appeal discussions, but unless they are unblocking the user themselves, should not remove the request or decline the appeal themselves (shockingly, I have seen that done before and in one instance it was the blocked user's very first use of the template!). The other thing is, deciding who is using the template "disruptively" is, like most behavioural issues, often a very subjective thing and I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people who would not consider the third appeal the user in this instance made was a "disruptive" use of the appeal template -[1]. And since we have plenty of admins and block reviewers, it seems common sense that admins should protect themselves and not take actions that put themselves in a potentially compromised position or a position where they appear to be acting with a conflict of interest. That said, I wasn't trying to kick up drama and only wanted to raise with Jehochman my concern that appeals should be managed by uninvolved admins and all I was looking for was some kind of acknowledgment so I accept his responses here and have no further concerns regarding it. Sarah 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the first 2 were disruptive as they attempted to lawyer their way out of a block (attack the system). Now that I've found the talk page, the third one probably should have been reviewed by an uninvolved admin. If he just said the same thing again in the unblock though I would have said Jehochman did the right thing. -Royalguard11(T) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks RG; agreed, the first two were pretty blatant wikilawyering but the admins who do block reviews would have (and did) quickly see those for what they were and dealt with them appropriately, so I still feel in such instances it's best to leave them to independent admins. Users who try to wikilawyer out of blocks will usually use something like the blocking admin reverting their appeal as a rationale to wikilawyer more and that's what he's actually been trying to do. As well, the admins who responded to the first two unblock requests declined to unblock on the basis of the merits of the requests themselves and that the "unblock request contain[ed] no assurances that [the user's] behavior will stop" and that he had not presented "a reason to unblock"; then when he did present something of a reason which was somewhat policy-based - that he was warned then blocked without being given an opportunity to action the warning, the request was reverted. The nature of the previous reviews effectively invited the user to present a policy-based request and did not warn him that he was at the limit of his requests and was not permitted further use of the template so further appeals would be reverted without review. While the template does warn that disruptive use of the template can result in the page being protected, he was also getting the message: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again" and as the guide linked contains no numerical limit of appeals, and following the previous admins' comments, I think he would have reasonably felt invited to post a non-wikilawyerish appeal that dealt with the issues raised by the reviewing admins. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for this fellow or suggesting he should be unblocked. If I had reviewed the third appeal, I would have endorsed the block and declined his request anyway but because the first two appeals were dismissed as not being policy-based appeals and not dealing with the actual block rationale, he effective didn't really have a proper independent review of the block (although admittedly Jayrons's decline addressed issues that would have been raised if he had posted a reasonable non-wikilawyery appeal). So I still think the path of least drama, disruption and self-protection for the blocking administrator, is to follow WP:APPEAL, BLOCK, GAB, ADMIN, etc and leave the requests to other admins. Sarah 02:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the first 2 were disruptive as they attempted to lawyer their way out of a block (attack the system). Now that I've found the talk page, the third one probably should have been reviewed by an uninvolved admin. If he just said the same thing again in the unblock though I would have said Jehochman did the right thing. -Royalguard11(T) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. All I was looking for was a reasonable acknowledgment so I appreciate that and as far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved. It's true that a long time ago the unblock decline template said that users were only entitled to use the unblock template a limited number of times per block per year (two or three, I forget which now) but that was removed a long time ago (a year ago, possibly more) in favour of the more general current wording: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.". We changed it because the fixed limit thing was never supported by policy and I don't think it is now either. I don't think the appeal policy WP:APPEAL says anything about how many appeals a user can make and who may respond to the template in such cases, only more generally: "Requests for unblocks should be reviewed by administrators other than the one who administered the block." So I don't agree there is any fixed numerical limit but rather application of common sense - i.e. if someone is using the template disruptively then their page can be protected. However, I also feel it's common sense, and supported by policies, that the blocking admin may leave notes and comments for reviewing admins and participate in any appeal discussions, but unless they are unblocking the user themselves, should not remove the request or decline the appeal themselves (shockingly, I have seen that done before and in one instance it was the blocked user's very first use of the template!). The other thing is, deciding who is using the template "disruptively" is, like most behavioural issues, often a very subjective thing and I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people who would not consider the third appeal the user in this instance made was a "disruptive" use of the appeal template -[1]. And since we have plenty of admins and block reviewers, it seems common sense that admins should protect themselves and not take actions that put themselves in a potentially compromised position or a position where they appear to be acting with a conflict of interest. That said, I wasn't trying to kick up drama and only wanted to raise with Jehochman my concern that appeals should be managed by uninvolved admins and all I was looking for was some kind of acknowledgment so I accept his responses here and have no further concerns regarding it. Sarah 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- In this case there were two unblock requests, one denied by MangoJuice, and one denied by Jayron32. I was the blocking admin. A third unblock request was posted. I removed it and protected the page, leaving a note explaining what I did and inviting the user to pursue further unblock requests via email (which they did do) or via the Arbcom (which I have now done). At the time it seemed like removing the third request and protecting the page was a straightforward application of policy that anybody could do, but since Sarah has expressed concerns, I have stated that I'll not remove any unblock requests in that situation again (unless a consensus develops that such removal is acceptable). Jehochman Talk 16:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- As the blocking admin you shouldn't be the one reviewing unblock requests, but if they have been denied by two other admins then I'd say asking for more would be an abuse of process. If two other admins essentially endorse the block by denying unblock I don't think it matter who's closing future requests. As for protection of talk pages of blocked users, it's done all the time. Usually you protect the talk page so that it expires at the same time as the block. -Royalguard11(T) 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. My understanding is that users get two block appeals. Once those are rejected, further appeals are considered an abuse of process and anyone can remove them and protect the page to prevent disruption. I specifically invited the user to file appeals via email, which they did do. Carcharoth received such an appeal and communicated with me about it around Dec 14. I believe we should avoid excessive bureaucracy, and two block appeals (three actually) are quite enough I think. In any case, next time I'll leave the third unblock request in place to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Jehochman Talk 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an accurate description. What I objected to was Jehochman intercepting (i.e removing) a block appeal of one of his own blocks. If the appeal needs to be removed then that's fine but it should be left to an uninvolved admin. That's the whole point of appeals. Sarah 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey
FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:
Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protecting user pages (again)
It's fine if you disagree with current (agreed-upon) policy, but there needs to be discussion first. While I appreciate the boldness, months ago (see June archive) we agreed that semi-protection (or full-protection) would only be applied in cases of vandalism or disruption. This is a wiki; protection is a big deal and shouldn't be applied willy-nilly. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some users (not me) were of the opinion that user pages were special or something (I don't remember the reasoning anymore). I never agreed with the idea that users should just be able to get protection on demand for their userpages. -Royalguard11(T) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions
The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
ERIC IS THE BIGGEST DICK IN HIGH SCHOOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.136.116 (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] No "Move"?
Surely it is in an archive: why cannot I move (change) the title of a semi-locked page? e.g. Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Talk has been made useless. -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)