Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Retirement Protection

I've found a lot of retired users' user pages and often even their user talk pages indef protected, sometimes but not always at user request. What basis are admins protecting these user talk pages on? We don't even protect the talk pages of deceased users, why should we ever protect the page of a retired user unless it's currently receiving vandalism? I don't think such protection is in accord with policy. Thoughts?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably done when such a page becomes vandalised and since the owner is not around it is preferred to protect the page. But that is just a guess. I am as curious as you are. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the logic would be that such pages are not in use, and may not be watched for vandalism, and may be more vulnerable to vandalism, because people who've retired may well have made enemies. So protection here is a response to seeing vandalism and wishing to make sure it doesn't happen again. Whether that's within protection policy, I don't know; it may just be application of WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 15:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The logic I can see, but how it fits into policy I can't, especially when we have a specific rule for deceased users that expressly says we don't protect the talk page. I've been going through indef full-protected user talk pages and finding many, far too many, who have been protected in variance to policy. These are a small part of the process but really most were never vandalized at all. Most were "user has left the project and requested nobody post here anymore" or such things as this; often they appeared to be making the request to blank and protect so that nobody could see their long list of warnings. Amazingly, these were granted. Most that I'm dealing with were protected years ago, so I don't see any good reason to keep them protected even if there was vandalism. I just want to make sure we don't have a strange consensus that retired users who request protection get it but dead users don't.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of the reports I'm working from. All of the comments and unprotections were done by me: User:MZMcBride/Sandbox_5.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll see other issues there and I haven't gotten very far down the list but I've left all of the retired users until I got some comments on what authority there is for this. The whole thing started when I started working my way through Wikipedia:Database_reports/Indefinitely_fully_protected_talk_pages because it had too many indef blocked user talk pages that were making the report impossible to use. There had been a discussion on this at AN regarding getting rid of the very old ones here; and a much earlier one that said that generally 6 months protection was long enough for indef blocked users. I then started to notice that many of the weren't protected blocked at all which caused me to request McBride run this report.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC) - but then that's all another issue. Just wanted to give you the reference reports and explain what all the markup was for. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that fully protecting user talk pages should be incredibly rare. I see no basis in policy to protect when users retire (or even die). I also don't see a particularly strong rationale to add an exception for those two groups. Yes, a dead person won't be reading their user talk page, but they surely also won't care what's delivered to it. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with protection for deceased users' talkpages, but not retired ones. If they don't want to come back, means they don't care. If their pages are much vandalised we might semi-protect them. We might even make that a part of the guidelines. Full protection I find unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and it seems that if we protect them it should only be for a limited time, say max six months as that's what the precedent is for indef blocked users under normal circumstances.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest the following be added to the User page section of this page in order to clarify what our policy is - and has been all along; addressing socks only because some admins seem to think the protection is standard, want to make it clear that it's not (and as I understand it, never has been) policy:

Retired users

Retired users follow the same rule as deceased users. Their talk pages should not be protected absent substantial current vandalism and never indefinitely. Requests to protect the page by the retiring user should not normally be entertained.

Blocked users

Blocked users' user pages and user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected. In extreme cases of abuse of the {{unblock}} template, the talk page may be protected for a short time to prevent the user from editing his or her own talk page. This should rarely be done as it prevents the user from requesting an unblock through the normal process. When required, it should be implemented for a brief period which should never exceed the length of the block or six months, whichever is shorter. Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sock#Sock_puppets_.28registered_accounts.29; their pages are not normally protected.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is fine with me. But we should have more input on this than from 2-3 editors. I'd like to see 7 at least. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented since no one is commenting, comments above are already from more than 3 editors (Debresser's 7 is arbitrary) and in any case this has been up for over 10 days without further comment and it's merely a restatement of longstanding policy. See also WP:SILENCE. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree with you and the edit you made, I still think that policy should not be decided with such small input. The number 7 was indeed arbitrary. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have made a modification to the language under "Retired users" due to a discussion on my talk page. The intent was to clarify the meaning consistent with the above discussion, and not to change anything further.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of semi-protection policy

Hi there,

I come here after a recent semi-protection discussion at Vanadium.

I felt that the semi-protection was not warranted, let alone for such length, and so I questioned it. After some unfruitful exchanges with the protecting admin and other regular editors of that page, I requested unprotection in the appropriate forum. Another admin came, explained his interpretation of the policy, and lowered the length from 6 months to 24 hours.

Both admins were obviously trying to do the right thing. Therefore, I would like to discuss the current semi-protection policy and make sure that it does not allow such wide range of interpretation of the criteria for protection eligibility and lengths. I feel that more quantitative guidelines and perhaps some examples might help.

During the debate, the protecting admin said

"We (i.e. project Elements) do have positive experience with users, anons or registered, posting a comment at talk page first."

Indeed, my research suggests that there has been a recent surge of similarly questionable protection in the area, which I am pursuing separately. I am concerned that WP:ELEMENTS, as a project, and perhaps also other projects that I am not aware of, might be subconsciusly driving towards a clique-ownership of the articles, taking a blanket position that IPs are up to no good, and effectively changing the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, at least within that project, by discouraging WP:BOLDness and moving towards mandated discussion before editing.

And maybe such attitude is justified. As a registered user myself and having made significant contributions in other projects, I can relate to the feeling that time spent fixing vandalism could be better spent in other more creative activities. I can also see how days may be changing for WP, whose IP contributions are naturally getting less substantial and more disruptive. So maybe this attitude is actually now justified, and we should debate openly the option of changing this policy accordingly. This is another goal of bringing the matter here.

Personally, I take a more idealistic view, that eventually vandals will learn (through better education, both from the institutions and WP editors) that it's both uncool and pointless to vandalise WP. I also think that very often the potential of IP contributions is underestimated. Please note I used "potential", which is different from "history". In fact, one thing I disagree with the current policy is that too much emphasis is put on the ratio between good and bad IP edits in the recent history, forgetting that history does not always tell us much about what could be happening tomorrow.

Finally, I think that the policy should better highlight alternative tools that admins have at their disposal to combat vandalism, for instance specific warnings/blocks and Abuse Filters to increase the amount of vandalism that gets reverted without manual intervention.

Thank you for any comments. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at the list of articles protected indefinitely. Just glancing at the list, I can see that many of these protections needed not be indefinite, and fall foul of this policy. I wonder if we need better admin education on this matter. Thank you. 124.87.98.194 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also met several instances where protection was no longer needed or full protection could be lowered to semi-protection. Once a page is protected, it becomes impossible to assess whether the threat has passed unless you unprotect it. Debresser (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is certainly one related issue. See this for example. How could the admin know that it was the semi-protection that prevented vandalism? Also if, as his comment suggests, there is no risk in allowing only autoconfirmed edits, why not semi-protect all WP articles? I think this is the key behind discouraging indefinite protections in our current policy, which I agree with. Soque1 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when an admin has protected a page with indefinite protection, he usually forgets about it, while the situation might change over time (a template may get out of use, an article's subject may get outdated). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is particularly true of articles treating subjects whose popularity is either inherently time-bound, or that are arguably going to be forgotten in a few years' time - and in any case if in doubt the admin should be conservative. A few random examples: Valiant (2005 film), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (U.S.), Jackass Number Two, Pro Evolution Soccer 2009. Soque1 (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Few of the editors affected by semi-protection have the dedication, knowledge (of Wikipedia processes) or confidence to suggest removal of protection. Those able to remove protection - or even know which template to put on what page to contest it - edit as normal, barely noticing the padlock. This may change under flagged protection, when experienced editors start to find themselves locked out because an IP or newcomer's recent changes are still pending approval. Certes (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of those indef semis should be changed. That largely involved an admin+free time+music (Cause it is a boring and repetitive task). Some articles will always be protected in some form simply because the ratio of "good" edits to "bad" from IP's is miniscule. But Debresser's suspicion probably accurately explains a lot of those indef semis. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins better be prepared to be attacked. I once removed a semi protection there for years because of two edits in a content dispute long ago and had a blast with the criticism for wheel-warring. There's plenty of fully protected articles as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct procedure is to approach the protecting editor first... Debresser (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be correct, but it seems pretty useless. Many admins in my experience are unaware of the policy - despite their claim to the contrary. Soque1 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article talk pages

I've removed the sentence stating that articles and associated talk pages should not both be semiprotected at the same time. I think that current practice is that we should be extremely hesitant to semiprotect article talk pages, but the blanket admonition does not reflect current practice. In cases of egregious abuse, the best way forward is occasionally to semiprotect both an article and its talk page (see [1], for example). Policy can, and should (and does) recommend against semiprotecting talk pages, but it should not explicitly prohibit it, since on rare occasions it's the least bad option available. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

i disagree with this. for example Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident has been protected in addition to the article being protected. it sais on top that it is due to some users behavior. why don't they block those users. it is simply nonsense to block all anonymous editors from discussing because there might be few who are disruptive. is wikipedia becoming a closed and non-collaborative encyclopedia?

yes 123.225.210.202 (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

also, could someone post on above climate research unit talk page a request for de-protection? thanks. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

you have to post your request here: WP:RFUP. 123.225.210.202 (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. "Should not" is not the same as "must not", so the policy and practice are not different. The sentence is useful to remind administrators that talk page protections in addition to article protections should be used only when absolutely necessary and then only for short terms. But "should not...be both protected" does not mean that they can't if needed. Regards SoWhy 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember taking note of when this sentence was added a long time ago, and as far as I know it was added without discussion. I did not revert it at the time as SoWhy's interpretation of it was the same as mine; if it said "must not" I would object as it sometimes necessary to semi-protect talk pages, and this will almost end talk page semi-protection completely since if disruption is bad enough on the talk page to justify protection, it will nearly always spill over to justify semi-protection of the article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Support the "should not" verbiage with the exceptions being just that. –xeno^talk 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - except that people interpret it as "must not" (e.g. here). Would it be OK to clarify this as "With rare exceptions..." or "generally should not both be protected"? I don't think it changes the meaning as you guys have described it, but it might be a useful clarification. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would not object to such a change. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the removal was a good thing. The previous sentence adequately explains the reason not to protect article talkpages in general, and there is no need to repeat that for the specific case where the article is also protected. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite protection of Disney related articles

Because of a persistant sock puppeteer over 70 articles was indefinitely protected almost a year ago. (log entries) It has not stopped the the vandal though since he is still according to the editors who deals with on a regular basis very active vandalising other articles. I such protection justified. Looking at articles separately there is in opinion not enough vandalism to justify protection, but the situation is more complex since the total amount of subtle vandalism is a big problem. Opinions? Rettetast (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, its all that seems doable unless and until someone can either get his ISP and parents involved in the real world to put a stop to it, or Bell South Atlanta is basically blocked, and even that would only be a partial solution, as he vandalizes while visiting his relatives (and gleefully gloats about getting around the blocks) and has hit from his school (which did get their range blocked awhile). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing this site on and off virtually since its inception. I have never in all that time seen anything quite like this from a single vandal. General Tojo is the only other single-purpose/single-person vandal who comes to mind unless you count the indefatigable MascotGuy. Neither comes remotely close to the damage caused in volunteer time and server space this brat has imposed on this site. No one seems willing to shut down the IPs because of "collateral damage." Hey, it's no fun blocking legit users, but every edit I've encountered from those BellSouth IPs have been this nincompoop's. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a modified version of flagged revisions - set so that every edit from certain IP ranges comes up as needing to be checked before it goes live. ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the experiment of locking down all those articles has failed, I just blocked another BF sock a few minutes ago. I was one of those who pushed for those articles to be protected, in the hope that this loony might give up if we took away his favorite toys, but sadly this has not been the case. I wonder, if we did do the rangeblock, would BellSouth finally get of it's collective ass and do something? It seems like getting articles protected is now actually a goal in his sick little games. I'm often leaving them unprotected as "bait" lately, which he of course takes every time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the range that he is on? My guess is they haven't done rangeblocks because it may cause collateral damage. If this has gone on for 2 years, I think there should be a rangeblock and if there are innocent users who wish to edit from that range, they can always apply for an IP block exemption. Momo san ^Gespräch 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He jumps through several ranges. There have been some range blocks done, but then he goes to another one. The most recent blocks have been from the 70.146.213.xxx ones. I almost wonder if, crazy as it may sound, if the whole BellSouth Atlanta set could be blocked, to get his ISP to finally step up, since they have ignored at least one report (that I know of) asking them to deal with him. It may be inconvenient from the innocent IPs to have to apply for an exception, but at least it would put a stop to him except while he is traveling. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the technical know-how, having never done a rangeblock, but I support this idea. We might want to solicit a bit more input before proceeding though. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks might be of some use as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The range that he is on now is 70.146.192.0/18, see block log. If it's to be blocked again, it must be a hard block. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to what I said, his other IP range 68.220.160.0/19 is already blocked for 1 year, see it's block log. Lets hope the 70 IP range can get the same block too. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to get that 70.146.192.0/18 range blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101. Lets see what happens from here. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He got around it [2] ip resolves to Louisiana. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that one is him, though, as it made only one edit? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the nature of the edit makes it pretty clear. Sometimes when dealing with this kind of craziness it's easy to get paranoid, but this looks to me like he is aware of the rangeblock and is trying to tell us he already got around it. When I first got involved in this business he was obsessed with the Flower character, he only gave it up because the articles were locked. You know better than anyone how he likes to taunt and leave little hints. Specifically, the ip resolves to Monroe, Louisiana, which is not far from Mobile, Alabama, one of his known haunts. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked the new IP again and it actually geolocates to Columbia Missouri, too far away from Mobile Alabama. The company is headquarted in Monroe LA but the IP pool is not from there Momo san ^Gespräch 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected pages

Are any pages fully protected besides heavily used templates and the Main Page? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 04:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Short periods of full protection are often applied to end content disputes and force edit warriors onto the talk page.

Currently protected pages are listed at Category:Wikipedia protected pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of fully protected articles (not including templates)? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my previous post. Click on the link and you will see a list of all articles that are currently fully protected. For example, Joseph Schlessinger is currently listed there as it is protected to stop WP:BLP violations from being added. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Database reports/Fully protected articles with unusually long expiries and Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully protected articles is what you are looking for? –xeno^talk 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing

People say Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

I'm glad this is up, because it proves them wrong for some articles at the very least.

It's sad that some people say this site can't be trusted.

I like going here because it has information about, well, anything. It's easily accessible too and easy to understand. I've noticed that some of the things I read seem rather odd and I don't know if it's true or not but most things I look up I know or end up knowing it's true.

Then there's citations for information which I even had to do in school because of plagiarism. Whether those sites can be trusted or not, I don't know, but it's like people wrote down what they know or what they thought they know off the top of their head.

- TetsujinSaiki

Do redirects qualify as salting?

I know salting is officially the protection of a nonexistent page, but I have on occasion (iPhone 4) protected redirects for the same reasons a page would be salted: to prevent WP:CRYSTAL and article fragmentation. I would like a clarification as to the exact classification of these protections, and perhaps for a note of it to be made in the policy. Thanks. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made the right decision with the iPhone page. It was my impression that salting was more used for non notable pages that keep getting created (think A7), like somebody's garage band. If it's a page that "may" be a future product/sequel of something that already has page(s), then redirecting it back to the main/"first edition" page is probably the right call. -Royalguard11(T) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template protection

This discussion was moved here from Template talk:Information#Bring one parameter in line - request. --David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you move the protection template to the template itself? I prefer them on the documentation pages, and that is also what it says on Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Templates. Not that it is an important enough issue to change it back, but I don't see why it has to be moved into the template either. Or did you add it to the template first, and didn't notice that there was one in the documentation already? Debresser (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

End part moved here from the other page.

First an explanation to anyone else reading this: {{pp-template}} should be added to all protected templates, it displays a small padlock in the upper right corner and categorizes the page as a protected template. {{pp-template}} automatically detects if a template is semi or fully protected and displays the appropriate padlock. If {{pp-template}} is placed on an unprotected template it also detects that and reports the template into an error category.

Debresser: You want to have the {{pp-template}} in the /doc page of the templates (in the <includeonly> area). While praxis among most admins is to put it at the bottom of the template itself (in the <noinclude> area). Both places have their pros and cons.

1: Admins often forget to add the protection template when they protect a template. Then any user can add it to the /doc page to fix it.

2: Admins also often forget to remove the protection template when they unprotect a template, but then it doesn't matter if the protection template is on the template page or the /doc page since then any user can remove the template in both cases.

3: Users often add or remove the protection template from a template since they think that protects or unprotects the template. So having the protection template on the protected template itself prevents users from removing it when the template is still protected.

4: If users get used to seeing the protection template on /doc pages, then they might start to add it to /doc pages but in the wrong place outside the the <includeonly> area. Thus wrongfully showing the padlock on the /doc pages themselves.

Mostly due to reason 3 above I prefer to put {{pp-template}} on the template page itself when I protect a template. There's no reason for me as an admin to put it on the /doc page. But I find it very okay if users add the protection template to the /doc page if/when an admin have forgotten to add it. I know that some admins prefer if the protection template is never put on the /doc page, but I think it is unnecessary for users to spend time asking an admin to fix it when the user can simply use the /doc page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the section "Templates" has been added to this policy page during the last few months. That section currently among other things contains this text:

In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates.

It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself.

I disagree with both sentences. The first sentence make it sound like it is the protection template that adds the protection, which is a common misunderstanding that we should avoid. And in light of what I explained in my previous message above, I also would like to change the second sentence. Here is my suggestion for those two sentences:

Both semi and fully protected templates should always have the {{documentation}} template, so that non-admins and IP-uses can edit the documentation, add categories and add interwiki links. After a template has been protected {{pp-template}} should be added to it, so it displays a padlock and gets categorised as protected. Admins usually add {{pp-template}} at the bottom of the template page itself, in the <noinclude> area. If a protected template is missing the {{pp-template}} then non-admins can add it to the bottom of the /doc page of the template, in the <includeonly> area.

Since that is a bit long we could perhaps instead add it to Wikipedia:High-risk templates, and use a shorter version here that says something like this:

Semi and fully protected templates should always use the {{documentation}} and {{pp-template}} templates. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more on that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned four points, two that would be reason to put the protection template on the documentation page, and two that would be reason to add it to the template itself. While in your opinion #3 tips the scales in favor of putting it on the template itself, in my opinion the first two tip the scales in favor of putting it on the documentation page.

It is possible that our points of view are colored by the fact that you are an admin and I am not. I can not add a protection template to a protected template, and may put it only on a documentation page, while you can. Nevertheless, I do not think that putting a protection template should be the privilige of admins, and see that as an additional argument put them (generally) on the documentation page.

In addition, Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates is on my daily wikignoming list, and as the man working in the field (the only one doing this regularly, there is a bot also), I can tell you that admins make mistakes with protection templates, on a daily basis. Most of them I can fix, but often I have to ask an admin to do it.

Obviously, in the light of the fact that I disagree with you about the question where the protection template should be placed, I can not agree with the text you proposed.

If you think that the sentence "In view of this, editors should not automatically add a protection template when working on templates" may lead to misunderstandings, then I have no problem with polishing it. Perhaps we should add "Since protection templates do not make a template protected, editors should not etc." Go ahead. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence that you added to this policy page:

It is preferable to place the protection template on a template's documentation page (if available), rather than on the template page itself.

It goes against established praxis, and I am disputing your suggestion. So that sentence should not be in this policy, unless you achieve consensus for changing the praxis.

If I understand you right, you want the protection template to only be placed at one place. And I guess your reason for that is that you want everyone to know where to look for it, right? And right, then it has to be on the /doc page, since both admins and non-admins can edit the talk page. But I don't think it is a problem to have two possible places for it, and when possible I think it is better to have it on the protected template itself since that stops removals by users who think that will unprotected the template. By the way, I myself used to add the protection templates to the /doc pages when I wasn't an admin.

I wonder what kind of cases it is you can't fix? Since if the template is unprotected you can remove it from the template itself, and if the template is protected you can add it to the /doc page. Of course, if there is no {{documentation}} template that loads the /doc page, then that first has to be added to the protected template by an admin. But even if placing it on the /doc page was the rule you couldn't have placed it if the /doc page wasn't loaded.

By the way, long ago I suggested a solution that would save us most of this trouble: See Template talk:Pp-template#Merge and automate. But I haven't gotten any response from the guys that code and maintain the protection templates.

And I still suggest we use the shorter text I suggested above:

Semi and fully protected templates should always use the {{documentation}} and {{pp-template}} templates. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates for more on that.

That means we here don't tell where and how those templates should be placed, instead we should write that up at Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Of course, we still need to agree on what to write over there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't understand me correctly. It is not that I hold that all protection templates should be in one place. It is only that the documentation page is the more convenient location, for the reasons mentioned above. So unless there is a good reason to not have it there (like when one documentation page is used by several related templates which are not all protected) that is what we should advise (but no more than advise).

I don't think we should just refer to Wikipedia:High-risk templates. It is accepted practise to have a short paragraph on a subject in the main article, together with a link to the details on another page. I think the paragraph at present does a good job of summarising the content of Wikipedia:High-risk templates.

Your statement that "it goes against established praxis" is untrue, because a lot of templates have the protection template on the documentation page. I have no statistics, but I think at least between 30-40%. And I did seek consensus here. It was up here on the talk page before I made that edit. I am not at fault that only a few people partook in that discussion. May I remind you that you were on a prolonged wikibreak when this discussion took place. Anyway, it has been up here uncontested for a few months, after discussion, so I think that you would have to show clear consensus to the contrary in order to remove it. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)