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.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(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? --Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(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 (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 (talk) 17:17, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else care to chime in? --Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(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. WindStar7125 Divine Mangekyō Sharingan VolteMetalic 17:34, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
I would understand protecting these articles if the policies were regularly being vandalised, but there not. At best, any future policy that is to be edited, should be discussed beforehand, rather than the extreme of protecting them all. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 13:03, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Pls use protection. :p--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 13:25, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Vandalisation of the page isn't the issue. The issue is that the policy pages are open for all to edit as they deem fit. Protecting the pages ensure that a request can first be made to Sysops regarding the changes and then a discussion of same can follow.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 14:46, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Which isn't an issue looking at the history of the pages. Protecting all the policies for the sysops to only edit is a bad idea, considering talk pages can be missed, as evident from not all sysops requests being attended to, and even straight up messaging them on their talk page doesn't guarantee them taking action. Unless you can guarantee sysops be around to implement new or remove old policies on the protected pages, the idea is flawed. Im not against a change, but getting consensus before making a change to a policy is a better idea in my opinion. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 15:39, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Well, if it is true what you say re: "neglect" of requests, maybe that's something that should be addressed separately. To my knowledge, I've never seen any gross neglect of responsibilities from them =/. Policy pages aren't things that need to edited at such a frequent rate (despite what the history is starting to show) that them not responding right away would cause any issues. Discussion should take place first and foremost before persons are able to just go and edit the wiki's rules- that's the way edits end up being overlooked and rules are written in that no on agreed on. Once that discussion/validation of change in content is approved/declined by a quorum then, and only then it should be changed--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 02:08, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Anybody else care to chime in before this is [possibly] actioned? --Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 13:52, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Given that a block request was made by a forum moderator on the sysop requests page and not actioned by any single sysop, I still oppose protecting the policy pages. If ignoring block requests is not an indication that the page is clearly ignored, then I don't know what is. Not to mention another user has also disagreed that they need to be protected when they're not being vandalised to warrant page protection.
I asked around on Community Central and most people agree that there's no real point in protecting policy pages under some notion that they're going to get vandalised, because for the most part, the main article content (ie mainspace) is what will be vandalised most: vandals are hardly going to waste their time vandalising any other aspect of the wiki because most of those other namespaces are unlikely to get viewed. --Sajuuk 20:27, July 10, 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see a comparison between a forum discussion and a policy page. The former tends to require a bit more urgency in terms of response while the latter could be left to be implemented at any time. Part of the problem with these requests I've found is that there's no follow up from either end when a request is being made- that's something that would need to be addressed in another thread. Community's opinions have no bearing on what we do on this wikia, as long as we're not breaking any rules. Vandalising is not the issue, the problem is, the pages as they are now- are open for anyone to arbitrarily edit it and alter the guidelines of the wikia to their liking. Protecting the pages would curb that action so that discussion can take place or at least a heads up.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 00:50, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

Requesting this be actioned based on majority rule.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 13:36, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.