Talk: Protected page

Page protection

← Moved from GuildWiki talk:Policy

While I'm at it, there are a lot of pages that should be (semi-)protected but aren't.

• Project:Policy (the parent of this talk page) should be semi-protected at least, and possibly fully protected.
• Settled policies such as GW:ULC, GW:YAV, GW:CONTENT, etc. should be fully protected.
• Official listing pages such as Project:Administrators, Project:Fansite status and so on.
• All official templates should be semi-protected at least and preferably fully protected. The following is an incomplete list of such templates.
  • {{If-Then}}, {{If-Then-Else}} and {{switch}}
  • {{TOCright}}
  • {{attributes}}
  • {{ban}}
  • [template:c3] and [template:c4]
  • {{cleanup}}
  • {{delete}}
  • {{research}}
  • All templates in the {{skill box}} series
  • [template:tested-build] and [template:untested-build]
  • {{unsigned}}
  • [template:vv@]

These are pages that new, unregistered, or non-admin users have no business editing. Protecting them is harmless as only admins edit them anyhow, and it would prevent pointless drama such as in Template talk:Cleanup. 64.78.164.226 00:07, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree with you, but if you look at Template talk:ban you'll see what happened when I protected that. --Rainith 00:24, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

That objection was raised by User:Stabber who is now absent/exiled. We can restart the debate and see if there has been a shift in consensus. 64.78.164.226 00:28, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

The identity and status of the individual who originally raised the objection should be absolutely irrevalent. I would prefer if you discuss on the specific merits of the objections themselves, especially since more than one person provided comments on the same side of the issue. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:26, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

I have already provided the reasons above, but if you need further clarification, these are high risk pages and templates. New, unregistered and non-sysops should not be editing them. Even assuming good faith, there is an exceedingly high chance that such users will be making mistakes. Further note that editability of not a single one of these pages is necessary for the goal of GuildWiki: that of writing a reference for the game. 64.78.164.226 01:36, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

i tend to agree with ip-boy, these pages are a) not part of the regular content b) stable and functional c) potentially disasterous if they are vandalized. they should be protected for admin edit (is that the proper term?). i do however completly agree with PanSola on the bit about personal vs issue discussion, the validity of the argument is not subject to the source. --Honorable Sarah 01:46, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

I disgaree, categorically. How did all those templates get formed? By uber users who created them one time and everyone started using them? No. Each was made by one user, edited by another and another until they got to be popular and really useful. I do not see the reason for protecting them. (Are we certain none of them will ever need any modification ever again, if not, why place a barrier on that?) And I don't see the harm in leaving them unprotected. (When is the next time someone will edit template:ban and not have their edit reviewed by 5000 people?) So, what if a malicious guy sabotaged template:delete and Skuld caught it 20 seconds later and RVed him? What's the big deal? --Karlos 02:40, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Why even give malicious users that chance? Besides, it's not all about malice. Protecting a template such as [template:vv@] is also damage mitigation. Every edit to it causes nearly every skill, build, collector, quest and god knows what else to be recomputed. Imagine if a new user in good faith makes five edits to it. That's a large amount of unnecessary load. There is no conceivable change to this template that will not be done by User:PanSola or User:Skuld. In fact, the only templates in that list above that were contributed and edited significantly by non-admins are {{research}}, {{attributes}} and [template:tested-build]/[template:untested-build], and these are the least risky ones for which full protection might not be strictly necessary. And you haven't even commented on the policy pages. How much community authorship is involved in any of them? Weren't they all essentially written single-handedly by User:Tanaric? Do you think an anonymous user such as 64.78.164.226 should be allowed to edit GW:AGF? 64.78.164.226 02:56, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

On your last question, I do think an anonymous user such as 64.78.164.226 should be allowed to edit GW:AGF. It would be way too ironic to protect that particular article d-: Regarding the other points, I'll sit out here and see more deliberation before jumping in myself. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:05, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Some of these could be protected by anonymous users and probably even user registered within a few days. However I don't see the need to protect most of these from anyone who isn't an admin. -- (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Protection is unwiki and unnecessary. We admins are trying as hard as we can to remain mostly editors at heart. We have been trying since the beginning to avoid an admin/user dichotomy like typical fansites/forums have. Policy shifts like this protection suggestion fly directly in the face of what we've been delicately supporting for the last year.

Yes, I wrote the vast majority of the poliicy articles. However, they were all based on existing traditions and guidelines that were understood, but unstated. Personally, I'd rather none of these needed to exist—however, with the size of this place these days, there's simply no avoiding some discussion of guidelines. I believe I've done this in the most minimal and unobtrusive way as possible, and I think my writings have personified the community standards quite well. That none of them have been siginificantly edited by anybody, including other admins, lends credence to this claim.

Comments like anon's and Sarah's attempt to enforce a hierarchy among editors. "I've edited here for six months, so I naturally have more rights than everyone else." This is a disturbing emerging thought process around the wiki. Our unstated goal from the beginning was that everybody here, regardless if it's your first day or your first anniversary, has exactly equal standing in terms of ability to edit and otherwise enact change. This is why, for example, we're seriously discussing your suggestions, anon, even though none of us know who you are, and some of us suspect you're a sockpupper. The GuildWiki has never wished a hierarchy to exist. —Tanaric 09:19, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

I think a natural sort of hierarchy exists anyway, often a regular contributor will help out new users because we can see what they're trying unsuccessfully to do. Then once the new user is shown they'll often thank the regular and apologise profusely for their lack of wiki knowledge. Later on the natural trend is ask some more questions and become more ambitious. I don't consider myself "above" other users but sometimes I do act as a sort of mentor, I am both au fait with the goings on here and am reasonably knowledgeable with wikicode and I'm happy to impart this knowledge where I can. I suppose in some ways this means there is a sort of hierarchy even if it's working in a positive way. I don't think I command an air of superiority or look down upon other users but I think that I'm aware of new users and new users are aware of seasoned contributors and look to them for guidance. Hierarchy is ok as long as a sense of superiority or inferiority doesn't accompany it.

Protecting heavily used templates is ok in my opinion. Your standard user doesn't need to make changes to them, long time contributors may want to change them but this can be facilitated via the templates discussion page or via an admin's talk page. User's from other wikis who know a bit about wikicoding will probably also be familiar with the concept of important pages being protected. Classifying things as unwiki is one thing but in reality high use templates don't need to be continuously and mercilessly edited like a normal article. On the other hand most policy pages should be open slather, any stupid changes will be reverted, as will major changes, so they can be discussed on the discussion page. --Xasxas256 09:58, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Xasxas, I agree with your first paragraph. Of course experience and knowledge change an editor. My purpose was to avoid enforcing a hierarchy among editors, not to deny that one will naturally come into existance.

As far as your second paragraph, I disagree completely. "in reality high use templates don't need to be continuously and mercilessly edited like a normal article." Look at the history of any of the templates listed above as protection candidates. None of them have been edited more than a handful of times. Additionally, the vast majority of edits have been by non-sysop users. Protecting those templates would invalidate the very process by which they have come to exist, besides making it impossible for users to incrementally improve them. —Tanaric 10:38, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Pages can't be protected before they're created, non admins can create any template (ie bring them into existance) regardless of our protection policy. If you're saying that they've only been edited a handful of times are you not agreeing that they don't need to be continuously and mercilessly edited like a normal article? Isn't there very little incremental improvement?

Actually I've edited a couple of them myself and I suppose it would have been a nuicence to have to post proposal to make a change on the discussion page. But then again watching one edit vandalise a hundred articles is a pain too! I'm a bit unsure now but I do think we should protect [:Category:Templates/Advanced|Advanced templates]. I should also mention that of the 18 templates I opened, virtually all the edits have been made by admins or Stabber. --Xasxas256 10:50, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

I would advocate semi-protected status for highly used templates. Semi-protected would let established users edit the template as needed, but prevent any sort of vandalism coming from anon - or newly registered users. I would be vehimently against fully protecting any template page because they do (even though rarely) need to get changed. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 11:43, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Tanaric, your reaction is understandable, but I would like you to consider that the purpose of GuildWiki is to write a reference for a game, not to create an ideal of democracy or enlightened anarchy. Preventing new, anonymous or non-sysop users from editing policy pages and core templates is the barest minimum of hierarchy. You would have a point about enforced elitism if I were arguing about largescale protection of content pages, but these pages are not content. 64.78.164.226 11:56, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

For the purpose of page protection discussion, especially regarding the identity of editors who have contributed to templates and policies, I would like to be considered as User:PanSola, not as Admin:PanSola. I would have done all of those edits I made regardless of whether I was an admin or not. Of the top of my head, I don't even KNOW which ones I edited before or after I became an admin. So when you say "only edited by admins" or "only edited by admins and Stabber", I request that you modify your statements to also include User:PanSola, or at least look into WHEN I made my edits and WHEN I became an admin. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:59, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

Just my two cents on this ...

I am against protection based upon hypothetical situations. The most common argument for this protection is that if vandalism occured it would impact a large number of pages. But, with a single revert the same number of pages would be fixed to their pre-vandalised state. If the vandalism seems to have been intentional rather than accidental, nominate for banning.

If a particular template ever becomes a target of repeated vandalism from multiple parties, then it can be protected and the template {{Protected}} can be inserted within <noinclude></noinclude> tags. That's how we've dealt with other articles, and I see no reason or compelling argument to treat these any differently. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:06, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

I hate protected pages though. (Well besides the main page, but there are obvious reasons for that) Most vandals are either freshly registered users or anons, so semi-protected would suffice in just about all situations where a page needs to be protected from vandals. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 14:48, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

In a rather hilarious bit of irony, especially in light of my comments about not enforcing a hierarchy, since this change can only be enacted by sysops, and the sysops seem to be pretty much against this, it doesn't seem likely to me to be implemented. :) —Tanaric 22:22, 7 August 2006 (CDT)