Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Should be rare"[edit]

Umm...WK...not withstanding that the edit is a bit premature since ACPERM hasn't yet been implemented, what exactly is the situation in which AC create protection accomplishes anything at all, and should therefore be "rare" rather than "nonexistent"? GMGtalk 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought about non-existent, but semi-creation protection could be useful for pages outside of mainspace, where non-confirmed users can still create pages. That's not a big use case, though. I honestly didn't realize that ACPERM hadn't been implemented yet, though; I thought it would be implemented within a day or two of the RfC closing. Mea culpa on that. Writ Keeper  14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, that seems obvious now that you've pointed it out. Might be good to specify that when rarely used, it's only use is outside mainspace. I don't have the link to the phab ticket, but... there is a lively debate about implementation going on there, or at least there was as of this morning. GMGtalk 14:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Tl;dr a cs.wiki arb who is also a volunteer developer thought it was low priority and triaged it as such, and it ignited a shitstorm. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hoo boy, that sounds like fun. I was wondering why CSD still seemed pretty big. And we haven't added .* <autoconfirmed> to the title blacklist yet? Writ Keeper  14:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo, Writ Keeper, and TonyBallioni: Now that ACPERM has been implemented, what should happen to the already semi-protection salted mainspace articles? wumbolo ^^^ 15:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Nothing, I would guess. It doesn't hurt anything that they're semiprotected, so I doubt it's worth anyone's time to go through and lift all the protections. I doubt there's any need to go through and increase protections on them either: they're no less protected after ACPERM than they were before. Just leave 'em, I'd say. Writ Keeper  15:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed with the above. No reason to create more work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

errors on this page[edit]

there are syntactic or semantic errors currently on this page, for example : "Because pages in user space that end in ".js" and ".css" are only editable by the user the user space belongs to and administrators, this will protect your user page from further vandalism." The page needs to be repaired.

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Z75SG61Ilunqpdb: No, that's correct. Awkward phrasing, but it reads as "...only editable by (the user that userspace belongs to) and (administrators)..." I've made some slight changes, hopefully that's better. ~ Amory (utc) 01:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why semi-protect when one can pending-change-protect?.[edit]

Semi-protection completely disables edits by new users (only possible via bulky proposal), while pending-change-protection does allow them to edit, just limited by a barrier of pending edits?. Maybe, some new users actually want to improve the page. --IChance2 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Because pending changes is all but useless, is a technical nightmare, creates more work, disturbs users on their watchlist, and frequently will completely mangle page histories. It’s more trouble than it’s worth: reverting live vandalism is easier and much less work in most cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

I'm sorry I'm sending a message here, but I do not know where to request a place a defense on the value of Hapoel Be'er Sheva. I would like you to help me to protect the value of Hapoel Be'er Sheva because there are unregistered users who do more damage to the value than they do. Thanks for the helpers Assaf Official (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Assaf Official: you can request protection at WP:RFPP. — xaosflux Talk 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)