Forum:Protection policy amendment

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Protection policy amendment
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 April 2010 by Calebchiam.

I've been noticing a rather frustrating trend in the wiki and that is fully protected archives. In the Protection policy, it says that full protection should only be used for:

  • Pages with very high traffic (such as the Main Page).
  • Maintaining the integrity of the site's logo and favicon.
  • Protecting the interface and system messages in the MediaWiki namespace. (These are protected automatically.)
  • Talk pages of blocked users, if they abuse the ability to appeal their block.
  • Templates that have a great potential for vandalism through their inclusion on many pages.

None of those apply to archives! Fully protecting archives is stupid, inhibits maintenance edits such as clearing wantedpages and wantefiles, and is totally unnecessary. I propose that all fully protected archives be immediately downgraded to semiprotected and a note be added to the Protection policy emphasizing that fully protecting archives is not allowed. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:04, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - which archives are you talking about? If you see something like a Yew Grove discussion being fully protected then nothing is stopping you from changing it to a semi-protection....Andrew talk 12:58, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referring to some of the user talk archives. Karlis's for example, had full protection. C.ChiamTalk 13:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think discussions should be fully protected, only semi. BUT, I think users may do whatever they want to their own talk page archives. If they want to fully-protect it, it is up to them. Admins are still allowed to protect their userpage, right? Lol Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 13:13, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any archives at all should be fully protected. Full protection should only be used for maintenance thingies like main page stuff and media wiki things. Also remember that full protection is just a hassle for any editors who want to do maintenance edits. For example Tollerach was going through clearing WantedFiles but was unable to clear an image because it was used in an untemplated signature in someone's talk page archive (I think it was Soldier's). Tarikochi fully protected all of her stuff, archives, user sub-pages, etc. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:56, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It would be extremely irritating for me if I could not perform maintenance edits due to someone protecting all their archives, subpages, etc. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - anything that someone does on their own pages is their own business. If something needs to be fixed then there is nothing wrong with asking the author of the page to correct it or ask them to unprotect it so you can make the relevant changes. Besides, here on the wiki we don't force people to do anything. I can tell you for a fact that it if you go trying to change the protection level of all of my archives then it will not be a pretty sight. Andrew talk 20:21, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do. We force people to stop behavior which is counter-productive to the wiki, like vandalism, harrassing users, etc. I'm not saying that fully protecting your talk pages is as bad as that, but it is counterproductive. Why do your talk pages need to be fully protected? What is the point? If someone vandalizes them, then you can just revert it. I simply do not see why you insist on fully protecting them, especially given the inhibition to maintenance edits that such protection generates. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:51, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I fully protect them because I can. If anything needs to be fixed then you and any other sysop can do it or anyone can ask me to do it. Right now I'm too furious with this proposal along with some others and the overall attitude of some people lately to even put it into words. Andrew talk 20:54, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I honestly did not expect anyone to get furious over this O_o kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:25, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Andrew wraps it up quite well. Whatever people do with their own namespace pages/sub-pages is their own place to do with as they please. Talk page archives shouldn't be edited after the fact, and unprotecting them opens the door for vandals and mischief to go crazy.People have a right to store what they've had on a talk page with peace of mind it won't be messed up. Any admin can go in and fix it, which is why we have the "Administrators Request" page for them to do so. Why fix something that isn't broken? Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 20:42, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - In the course of my editing cleaning up WantedFiles, WantedPages, and other Special pages I often run into pages that are protected against our protection policy. If there is a dead link on an old forum discussion, or even someone's talk page archives, anybody should be able to go in and fix it. I seriously doubt that these pages are somehow more suspect to vandalism than any other article on the wiki. I don't particularly like the argument for admins protecting pages just because they can. I've wondered why old forum discussions and admin talk page archives are so often fully protected, when the policy clearly states that semi-protection is the way to go. Just a quick look shows that we have well over 700 fully protected pages on our wiki. That seems like far too many in my opinion. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 21:48, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget a lot of the fully protected pages are indef blocked accounts' user and user talk pages - 200 or so are fully-protected user talk pages of under 1000 bytes (pretty much only vandal accounts), you could assume a similar number of user pages to that, so 300-400 pages. 300 fully protected non-vandal-accounts pages is still hefty, but a good few of them are valid uses of full protection (high use templates and whatnot)... (see below) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:45, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - the reason we don't protect mainspace and most other pages is that it is counterproductive, because people cannot improve their content, and articles can always be improved for grammar, etc. However, concerning user talk page archives and user pages/subpages, those should be allowed to be fully protected because 1. They are the user's personal space, and 2. There really is no opportunity for "improvement" because the individual user decides what goes on there (and in the case of talk page archives, it's copy and paste, no need for "fixing"). The only such page that I would say should/has to be unprotected would be a user's current talk page, as that is how editors communicate with each other, redress grievances, etc. However, there is not really the potential for "fixing" userspace pages that there is for articles, and this rule would therefore create unnecessary bureaucracy and limitations. Therefore, I oppose. Butterman62 (talk) 22:06, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, didn't understand it correctly. I thought this was just for userpages and user talk archives and the like. I support this issue for the non-userspace pages. Butterman62 (talk) 00:03, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
So, in summary, oppose user talk, support community. Butterman62 (talk) 03:42, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't think archived user talk pages should be fully protected. Although they are yours, I think people doing maintenance edits should be able to easily access them. Any vandalism that occurs on those user talk pages can be easily reverted, after all. It's less work for anti-vandals to revert vandalism on a talk page (and block the offender if necessary) than it is for maintenance editors to contact an administrator every time they come across a fully protected page that they can't edit. Someone vandalizing an archived page isn't really a common occurrence anyway; I don't think any of my talk pages are protected at all, and I've had no problem whatsoever with vandalism.  Tien  23:06, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support Semi-protection is plenty enough and does not interfere with people doing cleanup and other maintenance. Fully protecting is really just silly paranoia.--Degenret01 23:40, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on user talk, support community - Community discussion pages (such as RfAs, etc) that are fully protected should be toned down to semi, if only to comply with RS:PP; there's no real reason for them to be fully protected, as far as I know. I see and agree with both sides of the user talk argument (its the user's own space, they can do as they wish/there's no need, and its easier for maintenance)... Regardless, current user talk pages should not be protected (per Butterman), except for indef'd vandal accounts. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:45, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on user talk pages, Support for community - For those pages that are not directed to specific users (aka RfAs, VfDs, archived Forum discussions, etc.) I'd have to agree that there may be legitimate reasons for non-admins to want to perform some minor edits and cross-index discussion through categorization and other routine sorts of actions that semi-protection would allow. Officially stating that archived discussion should be semi-protected may be a good thing (to keep anon users full of mischief from touching stuff of this nature... we should have slightly more mature users messing with archives in this manner). As for user discussion pages, I would even go so far as to say that users can do anything they want with their own discussion pages. Either as an admin to protect the discussion as they see fit (including a full protection on the regular "non-archived" talk page... if they so choose) or for non-admin users to request either semi-protect or full protect on discussion pages as well. This sort of protection should not be automatic, and should be requested by the user to whom the content is related. --Robert Horning 02:13, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would need full protection for their talkpages, userpages I can understand, but talkpages? It just gets in the way of maintenance, and seems completely unnecessary. And as for the issue of talkpage vandalism, I just don't see the issue. It's a pretty rare occurrence and I see it happen very, very rarely. C.ChiamTalk 03:31, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - "I fully protect them because I can" - Andrew. You say you are furious with other peoples' attitudes? I suggest you take a look at your own statement. That is exactly the kind of attitude that I have a problem with. "Because I can" is not a legitimate reason to do something that can only hamper other users' efforts. "Because I can" is not a legitimate reason to do anything. I'm fairly certain that nobody would like it if I vandalized the wiki "because I can". Despite talk archive protection being far less counter-productive than vandalism, there is still no good reason to protect these archives. Yes, they are your pages. Yes, they won't normally need to be changed. But no, they do not need to be fully protected from editing. In the overall, however, this is a completely insignificant issue. Problems caused by either of the two options are both very rare. I suggest that we just let this go, as I really don't think it is worth anyone getting "furious" over. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:03, November 19, 2009 (UTC) 

Neutral Oppose on user talk pages, Support for community - Per my last comment and Robert. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 05:28, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I agree, it is very inconvenient for things like links to deleted images or pages. I also hated it when I couldn't stick a TfD onto one of Tarikochi's credit templates. But that's something else. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:37, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If someone needs to edit one of my archives then they can always ask me to unprotect them/do it myself. Forcing everyone to unprotect their archives is no different then editing their personal pages in my opinion because they want it a certain way and you are changing it without their permission. In my eyes this violates RS:DEU. Andrew talk 21:12, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

From the "Exceptions" section of RS:DEU
  • If you notice anything obscene on a user page (vulgar language, crude photos, messages that may be harmful to someone else or anything that breaks one of Jagex's rules) automatically remove it. If you are unsure if it breaks this rule, contact another user to check it out.
  • To clear red links from the wanted pages list.
  • If editors are given permission by the author to edit the page. This includes guestbooks and some sandboxes.
  • To revert vandalism.
kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:01, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to say this one more time, and one more time only. You are an admin. You have the ability to edit fully protected pages. If you need to, do it. If absolutely necessary, temporarily unprotect the page until the task is done (for example if a bot or another user that isn't a sysop will be performing the task; this is what I did when I had FluffyBunnyBot clean up talk page archives). Andrew talk 03:14, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its true that I can. However the argument that you were making is that you fully protect your archives to prevent edits, which are against DEU, however the only reason anyone would have for editing them is to clear wanted pages/files, which is not against DEU. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:39, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per tLuL. It really is not a big deal if someone has to cleanup a page and get rid of wanted/red links or something. Full protection is not needed for something probably nobody will ever look at. Andrew, you say that an editor can just ask you to edit it to the proper content, but what if that person won't answer? What if Tarikochi's talk page archive is protected and has a wanted page link on it, then what? I'm surely not gonna message her, she's inactive as of September 1st, 2008. And again, in the slightest chance that some vandal DOES come along, just revert, warn, and block however needed. Check your archives once a month or something to make sure they're ok, it's not a big deal. (Not all of this post was to Andrew, I'm speaking in general, to anyone.) Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 05:24, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, ask another admin! Read the entire discussion please. Andrew talk 13:05, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
I have read the entire discussion. I just don't see where you're coming from with that, nobody should have to ask an admin when they want to do such a small edit? Protecting your archives is like protecting Ethel Prim; there is such a small amount of traffic, you would never have to worry about vandalism. If you STILL don't want any IPs touching your pages, then just semi-protect it. It's very rare that a user account would vandal, and in the chance that they do, why would they pick such a hidden and least-visited page to vandal? They wouldn't. Like I said, if you're so worried, just check your archives once a month or something for vandalism. It's not as if it's the main page. Not a big deal. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:49, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - LOL. Maybe this thread explains why I never protected my talk page archives at all.

I propose that all fully protected archives be immediately downgraded to semiprotected and a note be added to the Protection policy emphasizing that fully protecting archives is not allowed.

Aren't archives already included in Indefinite semi-protection list, and not Full protection? Full protection is only for "Talk pages of blocked users, if they abuse the ability to appeal their block."

So... what is this proposal about, and what are you people supporting? *scratches head*   az talk   16:57, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yes but admins are doing it anyways. So I guess the real change would be note that would be added. The protection policy doesn't explicitly say that full protection can only be used for things on that list, so I guess the main proposal is that it should. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:04, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with that. My pages will not be changed. Andrew talk 21:16, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you've got a lot of opposition to this idea. So lets try to find a middle ground here. My only problem with fully protected pages is when a dead link to an image or page is found on one of them. So how can we keep pages fully protected without this problem showing up? I don't really have any ideas myself, other than putting nowiki tags around images (apart from templated signatures because those will never be deleted) since those are the most commonly deleted thing that shows up on talk pages. My reasoning for this idea is once you archive discussion, its generally understood that the discusson is finished, and there's no need to look at the images anymore. Images in untemplated signatures would still need to be nowiki'd, or the whole signature could be replaced with the standard link to the userpage. What do you think of that? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:03, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
It's never been a problem for admins to fix broken links/images/signatures etc on archives. Why can't you just fix it rather than forcing people to unprotect their pages when you could edit them anyways? Andrew talk 22:50, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Because some nonadmins also do a whole heck of a lot of cleanup and stuff.--Degenret01 23:34, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
And as I've already said over 9000 times, they can request a temporary un-protection or ask a sysop to do it for them. Andrew talk 23:48, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Archives are for preserving things as they were then. There is no need to change them in any way. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:20, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

What about links to deleted images and pages? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:37, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, red links should always be exterminated when they can, to do this all you do is simply take off the "[[ ]]"... I don't see why it's such a big deal that people have to ask admins to remove four characters from a protected page. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 00:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
There are legitimate reasons to let somebody who is helping to index content, add header or navigation boxes, or to rename an archive page that would be legitimate actions.... and not necessarily something that should be restricted to just the actions of an admin. This isn't necessarily touching the content itself, but it can be of use to the greater community in many ways. The truth is, we don't know all of the potential requests or reasons that somebody with some creativity might be able to do with a page, and we shouldn't block good-faith efforts to help out in the development of the wiki. I do view user pages as a bit more private and personal, so that is something a bit different than "public" pages where the communication is intended to the general wiki community. There certainly could be ways to change discussion pages that don't necessarily involve changing the actual words used in the discussion. --Robert Horning 01:34, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Strong support He knows well what he's talking about  Rune scimitar.png Ppi802 Coins 1000.png  21:23, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus and lack of activity. C.ChiamTalk 13:23, April 2, 2010 (UTC)