We now have about 1500 articles in Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP addresses can't edit. I picked a few at random, and most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address, which was over months ago and there was no reason to believe it would ever occur again.
This is in violation of one of our basic principles.
Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected to automatically make this sort of semi-protection have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
An ever growing list of permanently semi-protected articles is not what we want, especially given that it's happening out of sheer laziness.
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
On 3/27/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected to automatically make this sort of semi-protection have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
The ability to do this is fairly new and admins tend to take time to adapt.
On 27/03/07, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
We now have about 1500 articles in Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP addresses can't edit. I picked a few at random, and most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address, which was over months ago and there was no reason to believe it would ever occur again. This is in violation of one of our basic principles. Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected to automatically make this sort of semi-protection have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
Yep. Could do with it defaulting to e.g. a week instead of defaulting to indefinite.
- d.
I would say that a fair amount of those sprotects were applied before the expiration feature was introduced, as Geni sugqests. It just needs some people to go through and unprotect those articles which really don't need it any more.
I think a default time of a week is a good idea too.
On 27/03/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. Could do with it defaulting to e.g. a week instead of defaulting to indefinite.
Or not have a default so admins have to actually make a choice. That's what we have for blocks (well, it defaults to "other", but that has much the same effect).
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would tend to agree. The "stable versions" feature should make a lot of this unnecessary. But now that we have the ability to make semi-protection time limited, this should likely be the default attempt.
bobolozo wrote:
We now have about 1500 articles in Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP addresses can't edit. I picked a few at random, and most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address, which was over months ago and there was no reason to believe it would ever occur again.
This is in violation of one of our basic principles.
Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected to automatically make this sort of semi-protection have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
An ever growing list of permanently semi-protected articles is not what we want, especially given that it's happening out of sheer laziness.
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/27/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would tend to agree. The "stable versions" feature should make a lot of this unnecessary. But now that we have the ability to make semi-protection time limited, this should likely be the default attempt.
bobolozo wrote:
We now have about 1500 articles in Category:Semi-protected, which new editors and IP addresses can't edit. I picked a few at random, and most I checked were entirely uncontroversial articles which had briefly had some trouble from an IP address, which was over months ago and there was no reason to believe it would ever occur again.
This is in violation of one of our basic principles.
Would it not make more sense for admins to be expected to automatically make this sort of semi-protection have a time limit, assuming there was no reason to believe the article was a permanent vandal magnet?
An ever growing list of permanently semi-protected articles is not what we want, especially given that it's happening out of sheer laziness.
On a related note, I think it would be a good idea to semi-protect all portals. There's no good reason for new editors to be changing portals, which are all code and no content. All the content they might want to edit is in the subpages, and I have never seen a constructive portal edit by an IP. (I'm sure there are some, but they are probably all by Wikipedians who weren't signed in.) Portals get blanked regularly, and often remain that way for significant periods of time.
-Sage
On 28/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would tend to agree. The "stable versions" feature should make a lot of this unnecessary. But now that we have the ability to make semi-protection time limited, this should likely be the default attempt.
Someone want to file a bug request? "Make semiprotection default to one week rather than indefinite." No other interface changes, just that if you do it as fast as possible it's one week rather than indefinite.
- d.