Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection/Petition

The undersigned English Wikipedia readers and editors call for a change to, or a cancellation of, the current policy entitled "Main Page featured article protection". We believe that:

• the site's administrators should be free to use their discretion in protecting the main page Featured Article, following the same guidelines that apply to all other articles on English Wikipedia.
• the current policy limits the ability of administrators to make sound decisions in specific circumstances, without acting against the current policy.

• –Outriggr § 01:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Grandmasterka 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Should be a guideline, if anything. Will hold future opinion until after the statistics are known (from the talk page).`I am interested to see the amount of time that the mainpage is spent in a vandalized state. I also think that the disputed tag needs to be on the policy proper, but that is not really a big deal. I restarted discussion on this issue in the last section of Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. Cheers!—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to have a vote rather than a petition, though. Everyking 09:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely. --Pudeo (Talk) 09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Surely the only thing more evil than a poll is a poll where you're only allowed to vote one way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely I don't have to tell you it's not a vote: the first definition of "petition" is "an earnest request". This is my earnest request, as it is of those who sign. You're welcome, and encouraged, to make your own. –Outriggr § 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia works through discussion which builds into consensus; not via polls, unless there's no other way to evaluate consensus, and certainly not via flinging opposing petitions. That was my point - m:polling is evil counts double for petitions. Petitions have all the faults of polls - i.e, they polarise editors and strangle discussion by reducing the whole debate to a 'yes/no' question - without the benefit of being able to show what the actual majority opinion is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I'm interested in gauging interest, not flinging anything, polarising, or anything else. These are all projections, borne out of a strong pre-existing notion about the way "Wikipedia works", to quote you. It's a wiki, and it can work however it happens to work. Now, one of my "pre-existing notions" is that for every user who wades through talk page discussions, there are many others with opinions, who traditionally don't bother with a chorus of talk-page "me-too"s, but may bother to make their opinion known in a short form. They aren't worse people for it. If no one signs, I'll have my answer. –Outriggr § 02:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely admins are free to use their discretion to protect the main page feature article already. The policy merely suggests that this not be done lightly and that in the vast majority of cases would not be appropriate. In extreme cases, there is nothing to stop the page being protected. An example of this might be if vandalism was so heavy that the page spent more time in a vandalised form than otherwise. In most cases however, vandalism usually occurs only every few minutes and is reverted within seconds. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My point was that when another admin reverts their semi-protection a few minutes later based on the existing policy, saying that the "main page FA should not be protected", they certainly are limited in their ability to act. –Outriggr § 07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to close the petition by noting the overwhelming support that we now have for this proposal. Clearly, with 4.5 supports, I've demonstrated to Mr. Blanning that petitions are a viable method of communicating with The Castle's representatives. <joke> –Outriggr § 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)