UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Semi-protection

keep

• Keep Yarp! =) I lieks this sguggestopnm! -- Cheese 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yarp. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Should users ever have access to any protection privileges what so ever? I can see move but no, not protection. --Karek^maps?! 03:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no this is for sysops, but I'll make that clear. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you not just copy paste the oridinal article over vandalised ones? --Athur birling 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to prevent the vandalism in the first place. But yes, the edit can be copy-pasted over, or undone using the inbuilt undo function from the history tab. --  RoosterDragon  21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then this is not needed at all--Athur birling 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm...

The fact that it is sysops using it makes me feel a lot better about it, but I still don't see where this would be useful. --Cyberbob 03:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help protect some pages from vandal only accounts that don't need to be edited by new users, such as Template:Wiki News (a high risk template).--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me of the time a vandal tried to put goatse into the wiki news template. The semi-protection would be great for heavily used images and important pages that can't be fully protected. --ZsL 07:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. User signatures would also be good candidates. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of auto-confirmed status

I think there should be a section specifically stating that confirmed (by A/VB) vandalism of a semi-protected page will lead to automatic removal of the auto-confirmed status, by the crats. I hope that is possible. If it's not, I don't think I'd support this policy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:36 11 February 2009 (BST)

If Wikipedia can't remove the autconfirmed, then we surely can't. I don't really think you can abuse a semi-protected page, it's treated the same as any other page unless your new (not autconfirmed yet) as you can't edit the page. If you vandalize the page it will be treated the same as if the page wasn't semi-protected. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What should be semi-protected?

Should we give, at least, an outline of what sort of pages should be semi-protected, and which ones should be immune from semi-protection? I'm thinking that any group/user page that is requested for semi-protection should be allowed, but community pages (location/suburb/glossary/etc.) pages should only be semi-protected if there is an imminent threat of vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:36 11 February 2009 (BST)

I have a few good ideas. Semi-protection will work the same in terms of how normal protections are done, except it's purely to stop vandal-only accounts. I'll spell some things out better since a lot of this is copy paste :o --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes. You can fiddle with the text if the wording seems awkward. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection will be useful in pages a recently created user would accidently edit because he doesnt know how to use the wiki properly, yet allowing users with more wiki-foo skills to edit it. Various templates fall in this category, specially the ones used in the suggestion system. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are excluding the various danger reports in that statement. They are the very sort of thing new guys should be encouraged to edit right away. Though you could semi-protect the main bits of the underlying infrastructure. Come to think of it, how come Template:MapSafe & co are protected but Template:DangerMap is wide open? Nothing to stop me turning that thing into a massive rickroll. Hmm...*off to scout YouTube* --  RoosterDragon  22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was already. I dont remember why it wasn't protected before, but i'll do it now. And yes, i dont expect danger report pages to protected --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ridleybank danger report has been semi-protected for years now. Most high profile ones that tend to cause conflicts are. --Karek^maps?! 02:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it "semi-protected" if different user groups don't exist on the wiki??? --WanYao 07:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection has nothing to do with user groups, although apparently it's possible to add in such a functionality but I can't say for sure. --Karek^maps?! 08:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well please explain how "semi-protection" currently functions. It's rather relevant to this policy discussion. --WanYao 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made it as clear as possible. It will work a bit like semi-protection on Wikipedia, except that anonymous users can't edit as usual and all users can upload images. Any issues before I put this to vote?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove the "high-risk" bit from "high-risk group pages". No reason to discriminate arbitrarily if the groups have to request it themselves. Can't even imagine it even being a big thing for groups anyway. --  RoosterDragon  00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. It could really be any page, excluding anything that would be edited by a newbie (unless in case of excessive vandalism). Some group pages are prone to vandalism though, see Umbrella. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just pre-empting somebody saying "Why couldn't my medium or low risk group page be protected if I want?" and voting to reject it regardless. Just trying to keep those bases covered, not matter how unlikely. :) --  RoosterDragon  00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)