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
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Protection policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The project page associated with this talk page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Before making a substantial edit to the page, review the policy editing recommendations. |
"Extended Confirmed Protected" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Extended Confirmed Protected 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/2026 May 13 § Extended confirmed protected until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Can protected pages in a given user's user-space be edited by that user?
I know that this isn't an important query, since it has no effect on editing, but for over a year, I have wondered if protected pages in the user space of any user who doesn't have the user rights to edit through the level of protection, can be edited by that user. For example, the user pages of ClueBot NG or GoatLordServant.
I've always thought that those pages would be editable by that user, but this policy page doesn't give an answer (unless I somehow missed it), so I figured I would ask here. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know but I would think the answer is no, an editor without the necessary right would not be able to edit a protected user subpage. I could protect your sandbox if you want, then see if you can edit it. Or, ask at WP:VPT if no definitive response here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Since this is probably a rather unimportant question (although I can imagine other new users curious about it), maybe
full-protect User:BlueEleephant/sandbox2 for a few (or 24) hours? Maybe asking at VPT would be the better thing to do, but I am not sure if a future editor would go looking in this talk page's archives, or VPT's archives first, for an answer. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 03:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)- I WP:ECP protected for 12 hours. Being unable to edit with ECP would be more convincing that failing to edit through full protection. Please report what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- It turns out: I can't edit that page anymore, so my myth of protected user-space pages being editable has been busted.
Being unable to edit with ECP would be more convincing that failing to edit through full protection.
Completely true that full protection would be overkill; I honestly didn't think much about what type the protection was, so long as it was above semi-protection. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 05:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)- Page protection applies to all who would wish to edit the page. You still need the appropriate user right, even if your name is at the top of the page. For some kinds of page, the MediaWiki software imposes additional restrictions, even when no protection has been set explicitly. For example, a page like User:BlueEleephant/common.js (which has no protection) may only be edited by BlueEleephant also by people with the WP:INTADMIN right, but not by anybody else. But protections can still apply here: if that common.js page were subsequently to be fully-protected, BlueEleephant would then be unable to edit it, because they are not an administrator. There are no corresponding methods to selectively relax a protection (i.e. protect for all except certain special cases) in any namespace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Ohhhh, okay. I think what made me think that protected user-space pages could always be editable by the user, is a combination of A) this policy page mentioning the pseudo-protection-type Interface protection without explicitly mentioning that it can't be assigned like other types of protection,[a] and B) user .js/.css pages being editable only by interface administrators and the user themselves. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 14:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- There have been a few cases I've seen over the years where former admins had to request various subpages of theirs be unprotected because they were created/protected when the user was still an admin and the protection wouldn't have mattered at the time. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Ohhhh, okay. I think what made me think that protected user-space pages could always be editable by the user, is a combination of A) this policy page mentioning the pseudo-protection-type Interface protection without explicitly mentioning that it can't be assigned like other types of protection,[a] and B) user .js/.css pages being editable only by interface administrators and the user themselves. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 14:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Page protection applies to all who would wish to edit the page. You still need the appropriate user right, even if your name is at the top of the page. For some kinds of page, the MediaWiki software imposes additional restrictions, even when no protection has been set explicitly. For example, a page like User:BlueEleephant/common.js (which has no protection) may only be edited by BlueEleephant also by people with the WP:INTADMIN right, but not by anybody else. But protections can still apply here: if that common.js page were subsequently to be fully-protected, BlueEleephant would then be unable to edit it, because they are not an administrator. There are no corresponding methods to selectively relax a protection (i.e. protect for all except certain special cases) in any namespace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- I WP:ECP protected for 12 hours. Being unable to edit with ECP would be more convincing that failing to edit through full protection. Please report what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- Since this is probably a rather unimportant question (although I can imagine other new users curious about it), maybe
Notes
- ↑ Although, I have known this for a while, but it never made me re-think what I thought I knew about user-space protection.
Pending changes
Should we perhaps lean a bit more into pending changes instead of semi protection? In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 00:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- No, it’s the single worst technical feature on the site. It is clunky, still creates an entry for the vandalism in the page history, and there are cases where good edits from established users get stuck behind it. I actually can’t think of a single use case where I would prefer it to semi. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- The only argument I have seen that I (mostly) agree with for PC is for short term rises in popularity for an article (usually breaking news) where there are a large number of valid TA edits mixed in with the vandalism. If a page is just being vandalised... semiprot. Nine times out of ten when I come across a PC'd article I end up converting it because it's only stopping the vandalism from appearing in the live article (and some of it needs RD and should never have been made in the first place). Primefac (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think that the fact that an article is PCed strongly discourages vandalism. Plus, the PC line is quite short. Most things are responded to within an hour. Plus, in the few cases I come across vandalism, it’s easy enough to see that I can just dismiss within a few seconds (like when a TA changed one of the “goals earned” values from 0 to 9000). In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would invite you to browse through my PC log, from a random selection of five I found five pages with RD or OS-worthy content in the history (which, granted, is usually why I come across them, but the point is that it doesn't necessarily mean "less vandalism"). Primefac (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Wow. I’ve done, I think, 15-ish PCs, of which 3 were wrong and 1 was vandalism. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would invite you to browse through my PC log, from a random selection of five I found five pages with RD or OS-worthy content in the history (which, granted, is usually why I come across them, but the point is that it doesn't necessarily mean "less vandalism"). Primefac (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think that the fact that an article is PCed strongly discourages vandalism. Plus, the PC line is quite short. Most things are responded to within an hour. Plus, in the few cases I come across vandalism, it’s easy enough to see that I can just dismiss within a few seconds (like when a TA changed one of the “goals earned” values from 0 to 9000). In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- The only argument I have seen that I (mostly) agree with for PC is for short term rises in popularity for an article (usually breaking news) where there are a large number of valid TA edits mixed in with the vandalism. If a page is just being vandalised... semiprot. Nine times out of ten when I come across a PC'd article I end up converting it because it's only stopping the vandalism from appearing in the live article (and some of it needs RD and should never have been made in the first place). Primefac (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Could your perspective be shaped by the fact that you recently were granted PCR and want more stuff to use it on? PC is an extraordinarily ineffective technical tool that really should be depreciated. It’s a legacy from a different era of Wikipedia that never really caught on even after what was one of the most divisive debates in the site’s history. The permission itself also makes zero sense and should be bundled with autoconfirmed since the separate restriction makes PC more restrictive than semi, which was never the intent. It’s a truly terrible technical tool in virtually every circumstance. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- I had this belief before (started about 2 months ago), but I didn’t know the size of the “backlog”, or how hard it would be to check each edit. Also, I expected a lot more vandalism than I actually see. (My other suggestion for improvement of the tool would be giving it to anyone with EC status.) In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)