Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Editor requests for unprotection

The policy currently states that:

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. Note that such requests will normally be declined if the protecting administrator is active and was not consulted first.

In practice, most users go straight to WP:RFUP and few if any administrators on WP:RFUP direct users to ask the protecting administrator first. I think we can simplify this to read:

Editors desiring the unprotection of a page should make a request at Requests for unprotection. If you wish to loop in the administrator who applied the protection, you can leave them a talk page notice or ping them in your request.

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It might be better to not even mention a talk page notice. It's overkill and a ping is more than enough if the requestor wants to do that. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed to this. I haven't worked WP:RFPP in a while, but administrators there should absolutely be directing users to ask the protecting administrator first. (There are naturally common-sense exceptions to this, such as if the protecting admin is no longer an admin or has been inactive for a while.) When you un-protect a page, you are basically reversing another administrator's action. It is a matter of good practice and courtesy to have a quick discussion with the original admin before reversing their action—see WP:RAAA. Mz7 (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between reversing a recent action and revisiting a page's protection level months or years down the road. I'm not sure how much there is for an administrator to add, especially after a year or more:

• Most page protections initiated from WP:RFPP involve just a few minutes of investigation.
• Protection logs are pretty detailed in a consistent way, especially compared to some other administrator actions such as block actions.
• The article history is also easily examined.
• It's easy to reprotect a page if needed.

It's also worth pointing out that most unprotection requests are appropriately declined, especially when they are a request to reverse a recent protection action. I'd rather just decline a dubious request than send the requestor off to hassle an administrator that might not even remember protecting the page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing in the policy that says you can't already decline a dubious request at WP:RFUP right away already rather than send them to hassle the protecting administrator—feel free to do that. The intent is that even if it's pretty clear in your eyes that a page should be unprotected, it's just a good courtesy to get the OK from the protecting administrator first if they're actively editing—who knows, there might even be something you missed. I would not be surprised if this policy exists as a learning from the past because administrators were unprotecting pages without knowledge of important context that the protecting admin could provide. The best way to make this process most efficient is if the requester approaches the protecting administrator in the first instance, so we should be encouraging that wherever it makes sense to.

I'm also not sure how we are getting the impression that "most users go straight to WP:RFUP"—that page has a warning highlighted in yellow that states, "Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Only post below if you receive no (favourable) reply." If an editor actually heeds that advice, then I suspect in most cases the request will never have to actually reach WP:RFUP, so we'll never see it there. Mz7 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Protection logs are pretty detailed in a consistent way, especially compared to some other administrator actions such as block actions not really. If a user is renamed, any block log moves to the new name. But if a page is moved, any prot log stays behind at the old page name. Pages subject to multiple moves and multiple protection actions over a period can end up with several separate logs scattered about. A so-called "round robin" page move makes the situation worse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point about there being a potential "unseen iceberg" of users actually following the policy. My observation only applies to the requests that reach WP:RFUP. Perhaps the best option is enhancing MediaWiki:Request-page-protection-form.js instead. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely some tension here between the recommended practice and the de facto reality, so I would support making some change (either to guidance or to practice) to bring them into alignment. Perhaps there could be a requirement to ping the protecting admin at RFUP, and a bot that would comment on unprotection requests and attempt to ping them if the requesting editor forgets. The admins at RFUP would then wait until the protecting admin has a chance to respond before acting on requests. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't know if this would be CREEP or it would just be ignored, but there could be an added parameter where the editor has to provide a link to the original admin's talk page indicating that they have been asked. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Requiring a ping instead of a prior discussion would be an improvement on the policy, especially if the bot was able to help bridge the gap between the policy and what users actually do. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I for one usually ping the protecting admin if he wasn't informed in some way about the request; if they don't chip in after a certain amount of time (1 or 2 days), one can still make a decision. Requiring a ping by the OP will, imho, be ignored most of the time, and will not change the status quo (the edit-notice/warning being ignored, that is). Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Protected talkpages

Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war has a bluelock, discreetly marked in the upper right corner. Would it be a good idea for visibility to make such talkpage locks bigger, with some explanatory text, or automatically add an explanatory banner to protected talkpages? Why, extent and length of protection, something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of a non-iconified template is already in the protection policy: In exceptional cases, if a page and its talk page are both protected, the talk page should direct affected editors to Wikipedia:Request for edit through the use of a non-iconified page protection template, to ensure that no editor is entirely prevented from contributing.

I updated the template on that particular talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

General sanctions updates

Not filing a formal {{edit semi-protected}} since I'm not sure what the exact language should be, but at § As general sanction enforcement, the ECR imposed by WP:GS/KURD is missing and the note on the WP:GS/AA ECR should probably be updated to include its modification in September. 129.170.197.119 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

'Repelling' of Attack and Use of Apache Helicopters

It has been reported after an investigation by Israeli Police that many of the civilian casualities were caused by idf Apache helicopters bombing civilian cars fleeing the South of Israel in order to prevent the spread of Hamas fighters. This corresponds to testaments by idf pilots who said that due to the cut in telecommunications from the South they initially did not know whether they were targeting Hamas or civilian cars and were firing indiscriminately, only targeting precisely in the final hours of the attack. This is not mentioned or emphasised enough in the article. The burn marks on many of the civilians are not synonymous with the weapons Hamas carried which were light rifles and rpg rocket launchers, neither of which are incendiary.

On the other hand, the projectiles fired by idf Apache helicopters were incendiary and were synonymous with the wide scale burning of cars at the sight of the party. Furthermore, regarding 'repelling' the attack I do not believe this is an accurate description as I do not believe the goal of Hamas extended further than their stated goals at the beginning of the offensive which were to break idf lines, take hostages and return to Gaza.

The movements of Hamas fighters in the later hours and second day of the offensive indicated that they were attempting to return to Gaza and this is the statement received from the spokesman of Hamas. Furthermore, the Hamas spokesman denied prior knowledge of the music festival and said that paragliding fightters spotted the party and were diverted to it by ground operators in order to take hostages.

This seems to be in line the correspondence from the idf which states that the party in question was initially planned for Thursday and Saturday and gained last minute approval to extend into Sunday. All of this is not mentioned in the article but is very valuable knowledge to readers.

It is important to emphasise more the military nature of this attack and take into account both sides of this conflict. It would have been vitually impossible for Hamas to take these hostages had they not broken idf lines first and this is what we saw from footage released later by Hamas. Evidence from both sides indicates the complete fall of Gaza HQ, Nahal OZ, Zikim and Eretz bases, the four major bases in the Gaza envelope. Furthermore, 15 other checkpoints and military outposts including a shin bet office concealed in a diversion were attacked and over run.

Without achieving this first, Hamas' offensive into the South and the chaos that ensued would have been impossible. Unfortunately this is again, not emphasised enough in the article. It is very important to look at this topic from an unbiased lens in order to give an accurate description to the reader and there is a particular danger of taking idf statements as official, factual and legitimate and ignoring Hamas statements as deceitful lies.

There is a vested interest from both sides, including the idf, to deceive, demoralise, moralise and capitalise on what they do and do not report. This must be taken into consideration when writing about this topic. It is important to note that the innfluence Israel wields in the media and diplomatic sphere which Hamas doesn't must be taken into account when trying to paint and unbiased picture as it is very easy to be influenced by a one sided narrative when the other side has no space from which to present theirs.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/7/from-hubris-to-humiliation-the-10-hours-that-shocked-israel

https://skwawkbox.org/2023/11/18/video-israeli-govt-spokesman-lets-slip-that-kibbutz-victims-killed-by-israel-not-hamas/ Odin818 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)