Forum:Semiprotect the Update namespace

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Semiprotect the Update namespace
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 February 2011 by ZamorakO_o.
See previous discussion at Forum:Semi-protect Update: namespace

I am proposing today that we semiprotect the Update namespace. Now, I'm generally one who opposes restrictions on IP editing in the content namespaces, but the update namespace is simply not a content namespace. After seeing vandalism to that namespace today, I've decided that it's worth another shot. Once the update is entered, there is no reason anyone should need to go back and edit it, much less an IP, because the content of an update doesn't change.

On the last thread, there were three main reasons cited by the opposition:

  1. IP editors may need to edit the namespace to wikify certain aspects or change HTML tags: Well, when an update is entered, it should already be wikifed, and I certainly don't see why HTML tags may need to be changed. That may have been true a year ago, but today those who enter updates are quite proficient at doing so.
  2. RS:AGF: Assume good faith only deals with past edits. It simply says that an edit should be assumed to be in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. It has nothing to do with this scenario, in which the only edits under consideration are potential future edits. Otherwise, something like stalking the Recent Changes for vandalism would be against AGF. Therefore, this doesn't apply here.
  3. RS:AEAE: The policy as it was written back then certainly did not state that IP users are equal to everyone else in every way; it dealt with weighting of opinions. Now that it's been changed to RS:SOW, the policy doesn't apply at all.

As for benefits of semiprotection, we would have to contend with much less vandalism in the update namespace. --LiquidTalk 20:43, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Wainot? You've gotta have a damn good reason to edit newsposts anyway, what's to edit, other than link fixes? Real Crazy 20:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - --Iiii I I I 20:51, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Since it's copied and cleaned up at or near creation, they rarely ever need to be edited. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:54, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - (Edit conflict x2) I would like to note that Jagex has from time to time updated their Developer blogs post-release, their news items (remember the pre-RS2 updates with images? Yah, they are gone now), and patch notes. Other than that, I have nothing against baring a group from editing a given namespace (minus talk pages and mainspace). Although this is going to end as a group right like charmedit is. Ryan PM 20:54, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

hmm... updateedit... Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:57, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - No need to edit it more than once (typically), specially not by an IP. Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 21:35, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I see no reason the update namespace should be semiprotected. There is rarely any vandalism to it. I could understand if you want the exchange namespace protected but I don't see how this would help. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 22:15, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Any vandalism is more than necessary, especially since the nature of the update namespace precludes the need to edit if afterwards. --LiquidTalk 22:17, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I have seen positive contribs to the update namespace from ip's and hardly any vandlism, probably the least of any namespace. Plus the fact this goes against the whole point of the wiki "The wiki devoted to RuneScape that anyone can edit." Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 22:22, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Oddly enough that sounds like my argument on the previous threads of this sort. However, the point remains that the Update namespace really isn't a wiki-style encyclopedia. Wiki articles are dynamic: they change, get rewritten, get revised, etc. The Updates are simply archived copies of text. They cannot change. That is the main difference. --LiquidTalk 22:26, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
If we followed that tagline to the letter, no pages would ever be protected. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
So because of very rare vandlism and very rare positive edits to a namespace, that namespace should be protected? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 23:04, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Yep! =D --Iiii I I I 23:59, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
It's for the same reason why archives should be semiprotected. It is just not needed for IPs to edit them, they should not change, and they are rarely watched so vandalism stays for too long there. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:46, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
But ip's edit, rarely but they do, these pages to make the layout better. So sometimes there are reasons for them to edit it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:28, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Every single IP edit to an Update: page I've ever seen was blatant vandalism. I was going to start a thread like this myself once, but I never got around to it. However, please leave the talk pages unprotected, for the obvious reason. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:38, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Per those guys above me. Matt (t) 08:41, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I was hesitant at first reading this since there really isn't that much of vandalism to Update, but just looking through the histories of some of the update pages, there's been basically no constructive edit from an IP to this area. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:00, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It is not needed for them to edit. The pages are not checked very often, so vandalism stays there quite long if it is not detected at the time of the edit. This just prevents that. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:29, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

(this is actually the same reason as why we semiprotect archives) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:30, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Good idea; per Andorin. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:57, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support / Technically possible - Good idea, and this can be done by creating namespace-specific rights and moving the ability to edit this namespace to the autoconfirmed group. Ajraddatz 01:51, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean "removing the ability"? --Iiii I I I 13:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - IP's have no reason to edit it, unless they are vandals. Squish them! User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:28, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Unless anyone objects, I'm going to ask Wikia to protect the namespace tomorrow evening. (That's about 3:00 AM UTC February 5, 2011). --LiquidTalk 03:56, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Wikia has been notified. --LiquidTalk 14:12, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The Update: namespace is now semi-protected. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:55, February 8, 2011 (UTC)