HRWiki talk:Protected page

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 22:46, 5 March 2006

[edit] Suggestion: Semi-protect?

What if we also had a semi protect for pages, so only logged in members could edit, which would reduce vandalism without removing to point of a wiki. This would be helpful on pages like Strong Bad Email, which are vandalized frequently, but also edited helpfully frequently -- nintendorulez 14:58, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)

I don't think this is possible, and it would ruin the point of a wiki. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

Exactly right, Firebird. -- Tom 11:56, 13 Mar 2005 (MST)

Plus, that would be completely pointless right now, seeing as annonymous editing is disabled. — _talk Bubsty _edits 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, temporarily semi-protecting a page that is persistently vandalized is not a bad idea. Wikipedia does it all the time. However, we will hardly ever need to use semi-protect unless there's a spammer vandalizing the same page every X6 minutes, or if there's an anonymous AOL vandal who is persistently vandalizing the Featured Article within a short amount of time. —BazookaJoe 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget, pages such as Strong Bad Email, often the first person to point out the new Strong Bad Email is an IP number, or a rare contributor. Semi-protecting it would probably slightly slow down the updates. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not a big worry, as semi-protecting will not last very long. If a high-visibility page such as Strong Bad Email were being vandalized repeatedly in a very short amount of time, semi-protecting for only a half-hour or less would be advisable. Another page that we could have semi-protected given the ability is Help:Contents, to prevent the auto-spamming in October 2005. That semi-protection would have been more prolonged, but it would have been effective. And also, for a big small (intentional use of "big small") wiki like this, semi-protecting our Template:whatsnew and featured articles (from anonnys AND new users) would be super-fantastic. Something like this might require a bit of extension writing from It's dot com. —BazookaJoe 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problem on teh SB e-mail page

under fun facts it says "strongbad has checked 163 e-mails" it should be 136, not 163. but the page is protected.

I've unprotected the page, but I believe that is referring to the actual number of emails he has answered. In some cases, he answers more than one, such as 50 emails and spring cleaning. -- Tom 06:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong protection

I've noticed some of the pages that are protected, even though they are obviously not compiant to these guidelines. Would a sysop unprotect them? If you need a list, I'll TRY and find them all. Bluebry 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a list, thanks. -- Tom 01:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lemme find 'em all. Bluebry 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1. User:Drhaggis
2. User:Jay
3. User:Thunderbird L17/Sysops

These are all I could find, really. And um, 1) They're not high-visibility, because they're user pages 2) Not logos 3) Not Mediawiki There are the reasons for them, too. Oh, yeah, no hard feelings on the users who have the pages. Bluebry 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll add the image JsJAd.PNG which was protected "Because I feel like it, that's why." - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This redirect is protected. The reason is good, but it really should be delorted. Only 2 pages link to it, a user talk page, and the Wikitroll archive. Bluebry 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This sig. Bluebry 02:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This blank page, which exists as the old guestbooks thing in Recent Changes. So, it's now unimportant. Bluebry 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right that they don't fit those guidelines, but why should they be unprotected? For instance, why would anyone besides me have a legitimate reason to edit my User page? (And I can edit it just fine, protected or not.) --Jay (Talk) 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone besides me have a legitimate reason to edit my User page? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. However, protecting your user page would prevent you from editing it. I can edit mine just fine, protected or not. --Jay (Talk) 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I mean the User pages and sigs and images. Coach Z's Team and the "recentchangesnotice" make sense. --Jay (Talk) 02:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

1) Who even knows Coach Z's Team exists?

2) They should be unprotected because it's against policy, and going against policy with larger power than others, is corruption. Still, no hard feelings. Also, User:Jay/sig and User talk:Jay/Archive. True, it's an archive, but I can't do it, right? And, no one do it to me anyway. Bluebry 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I know why it exists. Some guy kept trying to make the page over and over and over and over again, so to stop it (without putting an infinite block on an IP) it was made into a redirect and protected so it couldn't be made again.

As for the User pages, User pages are prime targets for vandalism much of the time. The only person who normally needs to edit a user page is the user him/herself. For most users, this means reverting is needed should someone decide to vandalize that user. I just skipped the problem by protecting it. It's not hurting anything, is it? --Jay (Talk) 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, kinda. Other users want their pages protected too. And sysops can't protect them all. That, and the users can't edit the pages anymore. also, This sig too. Bluebry 02:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When will it stop???!!!! Bluebry 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's over. I searched everywhere. Bluebry 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As we discovered the hard way, deleting "recentchangesnotice" just screws up the Recent Changes page, and it fits #1. I already took care of Coach Z's team and I see no reason to unprotect any User-specific stuff. --Jay (Talk) 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict. The blank (which is not always blank) page that is Template:recentchangesnotice is necessary to keep and protect because it is embedded in the code of Recent Changes, watchlists, and the logged-in screen. We use it notify power users of something important that is going on in the wiki that is not appropriate to make a sitewide notice for. —BazookaJoe 02:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know, I know, {stops} my fault. Bluebry 02:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I object to sysop pages being protecterd is that it's an abuse of the system. I am as susceptible as anyone else to be vandalized. Yet I cannot have a protected page. The notion that a sysop can is an abuse of the system.

Further, if there is occassion that a sysop page is being attacked, a short-term protect is warranted. But in a short time, that protect should be released. It's simply fair play. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly what I said! Corruption! Bluebry 02:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be exaggerating just a tad, Bluebry... --Jay (Talk) 02:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not go so far as to call it "corruption", but it is bad practice. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Bad practice. Plus, I'm not saying the people are bad people. Bluebry 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. But good people forget to follow the rules from time to time. Which leads to another reason to unprofect things like this: what is a sysop went bad? What if someone stole their login? And what if their page was damaged with no one but non-sysops to revert? That would be unwise for the Wiki. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tis true. For safety against vandalism. Bluebry 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the numerous comments in the discussion raging above that I just recently noticed, here's my reply: I protected my low visability pages such as my signature and sysop list, simply because there isn't really a reason for anybody to edit them besides myself. My talk archives, userpage, none of those are protected. I didn't realize anybody would take offence to my protecting the small number of pages that don't really require editing by the masses. If users are really offended by this, I suppose I could unprotect them. It's not likely that they would be the target of vandals anyways. I just felt much like Jay, if I want to protect some minor subpages of mine, who is it hurting? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 03:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If that is deemed appropriate, the rules should be changed to allow it. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If there was a way to make certain pages (your user name or your sig) editable only by you or, in extreme circumstances, a sysop, I'd be for it. But that's out of my hands. I can protect my own stuff in such a fashion, though, so I do. --Jay (Talk) 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. The page also does not say that those are the only reasons to protect pages. Pages can and have been protected for other reasons (to thwart specific trolls that won't stick to a single IP number, such as Coach Z's Team, for instance.) --Jay (Talk) 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

LIKE, 3 EDIT CONFLICTS: I dunno, maybe we should stick to the existing policy. Bluebry 03:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So then, a list:

• User:Drhaggis
• User:Jay
• User:Thunderbird L17/Sysops
• Image:JsJAd.PNG
• Coach Z's Team
• User:Homestar Coder/sig
• Template:recentchangesnotice
• User:Jay/sig
• User talk:Jay/Archive
• User:Kilroy/sig
• User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie

All of these fall within our current guidelines. Please note that the list of reasons currently given on HRWiki:Protected page is not exhaustive. Sysops may use their discretion to protect pages as they see fit. See also {{mprotected}} and {{vprotected}}. -- Tom 08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, 1) Huh?

2) I think I get it. Protecting pages is fun. As a sysop (Not here!), I am tempted to protect things. Ima not care anymore. Bluebry 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think the reason that sysops protect pages is because it is "fun," then you would be wrong. Nowhere in my reply above did I say anything about it being "fun." Please re-read my reply and if you have any questions, please ask them here. -- Tom 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The recent changes notice should not be in the list above. It plugs directly into several MediaWiki-namespace pages and is very much like MediaWiki:Sitenotice. It should not be edited by users. — It's dot com 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)