UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Protection Policy Change

I can has ur disscushun here plz? Thx. -- Cheese 15:15, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Ummmm Yeah

I'm definitely for it. Considering the situation brought up here shouldn't have even been an issue in my opinion. Its not like protections of this nature are irreversible, especially since I beleive the situation was a sysop acting in good faith and in the interest of the wiki. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 18:13, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Anything you reckon could get added to it? -- Cheese 18:17, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Let me think on it a bit Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 18:34, 29 May 2008 (BST)

How about something along the lines of This Policy does not mandate that such images be protected it simply makes it easier for a sysop to initiate the protection and Note protection can still be removed in the usual manner if it is decided that the image needs to be updated or removed.Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)

List

Make a list of pages, so that all images can be protected. For instance, why not all pages currently under the glossary category as a start? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:20, 29 May 2008 (BST)

They have a category list, but I don't believe signature images should be protected. Game images and other images that are decided upon to be unchanging should be protected. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:21, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Signature images should remain untouched unless the user requests their signature is protected in the usual way, images in signatures really should not fall under this policy. --  RoosterDragon  23:26, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Protecting the image wouldn't prevent the user from changing their sig, just prevent someone from editing the image and in turn vandalizing every page that the signature was on. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:54, 29 May 2008 (BST)

True, but if you wanted to update the picture, like how the lolcats are updated daily, then you'd have to request a unprotection each time. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:57, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Again... No mandate that it has to be protected... the Policy would simply allow a Sysop to protect the image without having to go through the protections page. I personally don't see one of us going through all the images and protecting all the sigs-images but if someone wanted theirs protected it would be nice to be able to just pop on over and protect it for them without all the red tape. Bizarre as this is its actually red-tape that eliminates more red tape than it creates. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 00:02, 30 May 2008 (BST)

How is it different than just posting on the protections page for a request for a sig protection? It's the same amount of steps. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:05, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Scheduled

I thought scheduled protections were for these kind of things. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:51, 29 May 2008 (BST)

This is bit of a bigger change that I think requires a bit more attention. Scheduled protections barely get any interest and maybe about 3 or 4 votes. This needs a bit more discussion with the general community. -- Cheese 18:58, 29 May 2008 (BST)

No, Midianian is right, needless policy is needless as a policy.--Karek^maps?! 22:15, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Cheese also has a point, scheduled things (both protections and deletions) tend to get very little attention. Maybe voting on scheduling things should be announced in the Wiki News? It's not like they're very frequent and they concern a whole category of things. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Why not? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:57, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Updated

I've stuck in a few extra bits and I've also made the sig images by request as opposed to scheduled. -- Cheese 13:23, 30 May 2008 (BST)