Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy close. Wrong forum, please consider WP:RFPP, WP:AN/I or WP:VP instead. After Midnight 0001 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin

Also

This page, and the user subpages listed on it, are a violation of WP:OWN. What they contain are private lists of pages that have been cascade-protected against creation by specific admins.

WP:PROTECT states that cascading protection is used to either prevent vandalism to high-visibility pages, or to prevent re-creation of deleted pages that are repeatedly recreated. WP:PT, where these titles are supposed to be listed, states that it is to be used for topics which have been debated, where the debate has decided the topic did not merit inclusion.

The practice of an administrator creating private cascade protection lists in their userspace, outside of community scrutiny, invites abuse. For example, it was used to prevent creation, for several months, of a Request for Comment page on the admin who cascade-protected it.[1] This page contains a list of article titles that have never been created even once, much less repeatedly, apparently as some sort of pre-emptive measure. This is a violation of WP:PROTECT, which states that pages are not pre-emptively protected.

By keeping a private cascade protection list in userspace, an admin is essentially staking ownership over a specific article title, and saying that editors must get that admin's approval to create an article. This is a function of the community, via deletion review, not one specific admin. Any titles in these lists that require cascading protection should be listed at WP:PT, and the private lists deleted. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the content of these pages violates the existing protection policies? Or are you saying there should be a new rule against private protection pages? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.