Hi all,
Brion's just enabled a feature of mine called "Cascading Protection". Simply put, this automagically applies temporary full protection to any page included on a page protected or semi-protected with the "cascading bit". Brion has so far protected the Main Page of en.wikipedia with this feature, which should eliminate main-page vandalism, except of images on commons; which could be uploaded by a bot, protected manually, or protected on commons. I would also strongly recommend protecting Main Page/Tomorrow, or equivalent on other projects, but I lack the sysop bit to do it myself. Any sysop is free to activate or deactivate this on a page that appears to require it; within whatever decision-making processes exist on the target wikis.
Please note that the edit and move tabs will appear as normal to save performance, however a warning indicating where the cascading protection comes from will appear when sysops try to edit, and an error will appear when regular users try to edit these pages.
Take care,
Andrew Garrett
(werdna)
Andrew Garrett wrote:
Brion's just enabled a feature of mine called "Cascading Protection". Simply put, this automagically applies temporary full protection to any page included on a page protected or semi-protected with the "cascading bit".
Excellent! Well done.
However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly apply protection to any page included by a given page. I believe this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page vandalism). Presumably that debate can now be called off, as the bot is no longer needed?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes, the request was withdrawn.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ProtectionBot
Steve Summit wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
Brion's just enabled a feature of mine called "Cascading Protection". Simply put, this automagically applies temporary full protection to any page included on a page protected or semi-protected with the "cascading bit".
Excellent! Well done.
However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly apply protection to any page included by a given page. I believe this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page vandalism). Presumably that debate can now be called off, as the bot is no longer needed?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 14/01/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly apply protection to any page included by a given page. I believe this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page vandalism). Presumably that debate can now be called off, as the bot is no longer needed?
Heh, the bit he's not commenting on....Werdna disliked the bot on principle, I think, and this partly boosted his work on the functionality in question. So yes, the bot is more or less redundant.
Rob Church
On 1/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/01/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
However, there's been a debate brewing over whether a certain bot could be given admin status, so that it could explicitly apply protection to any page included by a given page. I believe this bot was intended to address the same problem (i.e. main page vandalism). Presumably that debate can now be called off, as the bot is no longer needed?
Heh, the bit he's not commenting on....Werdna disliked the bot on principle, I think, and this partly boosted his work on the functionality in question. So yes, the bot is more or less redundant.
It's a bit unfortunate.. the feature is too blunt. Now LOTS of templates pages are protected because one of their many including pages are protected. Since a lot of protections are there to dampen content disputes and simplistic vandalism, this is unnecessary.
Should we instead just protect the entire template namespace?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It's a bit unfortunate.. the feature is too blunt. Now LOTS of templates pages are protected because one of their many including pages are protected. Since a lot of protections are there to dampen content disputes and simplistic vandalism, this is unnecessary.
Should we instead just protect the entire template namespace?
I don't quite follow your point here. Cascading protection is an *optional* feature when protecting a page which as far as I know has so far only been applied to the Main Page. Since all templates used on the Main Page would have been protected anyway, I don't see how the number of protected template pages has increased. Virtually all full and semi-protections will continue to affect only the page to which they are applied.
-Gurch
On 1/14/07, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
I don't quite follow your point here. Cascading protection is an *optional* feature when protecting a page which as far as I know has so far only been applied to the Main Page. Since all templates used on the Main Page would have been protected anyway, I don't see how the number of protected template pages has increased. Virtually all full and semi-protections will continue to affect only the page to which they are applied.
Nerf. I guess that's what I get for commenting before looking. :) It was explained to me in an inaccurate way. Sorry.
As you wrote it gives full protection to the included pages/templates, independend from the protection level of the protected page. In my opinion it's better to give the included pages the same protection level as the page you are proctecting. Or make an option to adjust the protection level of the included pages independend from the page you protect.
Hans (JePe)
On 1/14/07, Andrew Garrett andrew@epstone.net wrote:
I lack the sysop bit to do it myself.
Surely you mean "sysop row"? :P
On 14/01/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/07, Andrew Garrett andrew@epstone.net wrote:
I lack the sysop bit to do it myself.
Surely you mean "sysop row"? :P
user_groups row, if we want to try to be clever and make crappy in-jokes.
Rob Church
On 1/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
user_groups row
Well, user_groups has sysop rows, and bureaucrat rows, and bot rows . . .
if we want to try to be clever and make crappy in-jokes.
Is there any alternative? :D
On 14/01/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any alternative? :D
We could play minesweeper.
With a real minefield.
That would be entertaining.
Rob Church
On 1/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
We could play minesweeper.
With a real minefield.
That would be entertaining.
Be my guest!
On 14/01/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
Be my guest!
It's likely not a unique cynical idea, but fifty points to anyone who actually understood the obscure reference to the bizarre short point-and-click adventure game...
Rob Church
Regardless of the mines, do you plan to have the cascading protection level adjustable separately from the page-protection level? (The same way, you can have separate edit and move protection if you want)
Bence
On 1/14/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/01/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
Be my guest!
It's likely not a unique cynical idea, but fifty points to anyone who actually understood the obscure reference to the bizarre short point-and-click adventure game...
Rob Church
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org