Category talk:Policy

Protecting Policy Pages
Hello All!

This has been weighing on my mind for a while now- why is it that the policy pages that "govern" our wiki are open for all to edit? Take this revision for example which was done after this discussion was raised. This opens thought to the possibility that there are a lot of other edits similar to this being imposed in policy without being reviewed/approved.

With that in mind, I move that the Policy pages be Sysop protected and any changes that need to be made directed to the Narutopedia:Sysop Requests page that was created; that way all changes to policy are filtered/approved through the right channels.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 15:15, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not rules, they're guidelines, and it clearly states that the policy should be updated freely if and when they're not doing what they should be doing.
 * Also, Sysop Requests page is mainly ignored and not used by anyone any further, the most it is used for these days is the very rare "blocking" requests. So there's no reason to protect "policy" pages, it's only ever you that's had such a big issue about it.
 * Also, you clearly didn't look at the timestamps properly, that edit to the talkpage policy happened well over a month before you made your thread today, because it's a legitimate point: posting messages to user talkpages of users who have disabled their accounts is pointless, because the user cannot even respond, as they've closed their account, hence removing the message is the right course of action. --Sajuuk 15:19, June 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I only looked at the timestamps and not the dates. If the sysop request page is "generally ignored" in your opinion [how would one determine that in any case?] there are other mediums (talkpages/forums) available to be used. I know it may be extra work for them, but what I would like to see [personally], is the creation of a system through which these guidelines are structured and approval or decline of additions/removals are clear. Because whether we like it or no, call them so or no they are the rules that the wiki should abide by . Why else then are persons pointed to them, edits reverted, images removed etc if they're only "guidelines" and don't need to be followed? --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 15:40, June 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of that Cerez365. If for no reason than to prevent people from well, just going in and modifying policy all whilly-nilly.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 17:09, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, there -is- an issue where Policy would be used, and then when someone points out that "Hey this isn't in Policy!" someone can go in add it and come back and say "Well it is now." Which is wrong. Can't do that.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol.svg (talk) 17:17, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else care to chime in? --Cerez 365 ™(talk) 11:49, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * (This is Ten btw; Got mah username changed. Nobody panic :P) I agree with you Cerez. On most, if not all of the wikis I edit, the policy pages are protected. On the few I manage, I make sure they're protected. They're pretty easy targets for vandalism, as most sites have them linked in many easy-to-see places, for one. Secondly, I'm really not sure that just anyone should be editing the rules and "guidelines" that govern a wiki's day-to-day activities and structure. Any changes made should be approved through some manner other than "Hey, I think this should be added to a policy. Imma go add it" without any prior discussion with the community. In short, yes, completely in favor. Black  ( Talk ) 15:39, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to show some examples of policy pages being vandalised? I have been on numerous wiki's and for the most part, unprotected policy pages are hardly vandalised (there are extremely rare cases of it happening, but not enough to warrant locking pages on the assumption that they might be vandalised). Even on this wiki, vandalism to policy pages is close to non-existent (the only such vandalism being back in 2008/2009). --Sajuuk 16:02, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't have any problems with the proposal. 17:34, June 28, 2016 (UTC)