This userspace essay is anunfinished draft, and is not yet ready for use. Please do not attribute material from this essay to me (Syrenka V) until I remove this notice;it cannot be assumed to represent my considered opinion.

This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: This userspace essay advocates more aggressive page protection policies on Wikipedia, as an alternative to aggressive deletion, in order to address spam, paid editing, and conflicts of interest. —Syrenka V

To a large extent,deletionism appears to be motivated by a desire to counteractspam, undisclosedpaid editing, andconflicts of interest.^[1] While I agree that these are very serious problems, deletionism is a dysfunctional response to them. More aggressive page protection policies would be a more effective response. Page protection is currently applied too cautiously, and primarily against vandalism, rather than spam. This needs to change.

I did not originate the idea of protection as a remedy for spam. I first learned of the idea while participating in thethird deletion discussion for mySupermarket, which was closed as Keep, an outcome that I had advocated strongly. Just before the close, user Deb wrote:

• Protect. I would not argue that this topic is not notable. However, I think there is a serious need for protection of articles which have a history like this one, and perhaps a general investigation into paid editing (unless there is one already going on that I don't know about). I see the amount of spam increasing daily, and I see firms openly advertising for people to write their wikipedia articles.

I responded:

• Iendorse protection of the page after rewrite. My arguments in favor of keeping the page (after rewrite—Unscintillating's or my own), on the basis of notability of thetopic, should not be read as sympathy for allowing further contributions by the undisclosed paid editors who created the problematic versions.

I fully expected indefinite protection (of some kind) to be imposed onmySupermarket after the end of the deletion discussion. To the best of my knowledge as of 20 November 2017^[update], protection was never applied, even temporarily. At the time, I knew little about page protection, and I went toWP:Protection policy (WP:PP) to find out more—and toWP:Requests for page protection (WP:RPP) to see how protection was being used in practice. To my surprise, I found that although indefinitesemi-protection (WP:SEMI,WP:SILVERLOCK) was potentially available underWP:PP for "pages that are subject to heavy and persistentvandalism or violations ofcontent policy (such asbiographies of living persons,neutral point of view)", in practice semi-protection seemed to be used almost exclusively for vandalism, and mostly in very short-term fashion. The information pageRough guide to semi-protection (WP:ROUGH) reinforced this impression.

Extended confirmed protection (WP:ECP,WP:BLUELOCK, 30/500 protection) was used even more cautiously and sparingly.WP:PP reservedextended confirmed protection for cases wheresemi-protection had already been tried and found to be ineffective, and gave the number of articles to which it was currently applied—as of 20 November 2017^[update], only 1045 articles out of the 5,514,987 in existence on Wikipedia, which works out to less than 0.0019% of the total. The reasons for such extreme caution appeared to be related to a wish to avoidbiting the newcomers—to avoid offending outsiders with little or no history of registered editing, in the hope that they would eventually become regulars. Again, the information pageRough guide to extended confirmed protection (WP:ECPGUIDE) reinforced the impression left byWP:BLUELOCK.

To me—at that time still a relative outsider—this extreme caution in the use of protection appeared to be a serious misjudgment of the psychology of outsiders. And it made a stark contrast with what I saw, from myinclusionist point of view, as theabattoir of articles atAfD (and itsproposed deletion annex). Wikipedia's insiders appeared to be anything but cautious in the use of articledeletion, a procedure far more extreme than evenfull protection (WP:FULL,WP:GOLDLOCK). Non-administrators might not be able toedit fully protected pages, but we could at leastread them, and examine their history—and, generally speaking, we could expect to be able to continue to do those things indefinitely. By contrast, to a non-administrator, a deleted page might as well not exist. According to sectionWP:PERMADEL withinWP:Deletion policy, even the possibility of eventual undeletion could not be relied on:

Deletion should not be used forarchiving a page. The developershave indicated that the deleted pages can be cleared or removed from the database at any time.

The actual words of the developer in question (from the link inWP:PERMADEL above) are even more blunt (emphasis in the original):

Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. --brion 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, I havenever been offended by seeing a protection-lock symbol on a page. By contrast, I have more than once felt outrage at the deletion, or attempted deletion, or even{{notability}}-tagging of material I had relied on purely as a reader (and had not personally created) and wanted to be able to refer back to. I was deterred for years from participating actively as a Wikipedia editor because of concerns about possible wasted work from deletion. I'm hardly alone among outsiders in this kind—and, in some cases, degree—of concern. Nor is it shared only by outsiders.^[2][3][4][5]

• User essays
• User essays on deletion