Forum:Protection on AAAAAAAAA!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Protection on AAAAAAAAA!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 368 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I know this will be somewhat controversial, which is why I'm asking this here.

Now that extended confirmed protection, requiring 500 edits and 30 days' registration, has been implemented here on Uncyclopedia, would it be a good idea to lower the protection on AAAAAAAAA!, or would it be better to keep it on full (admin) protection?

It is to note that AAAAAAAAA! is basically our most popular page, and as such, has to be treated with great care. Normal autoconfirmed protection won't suffice for this very reason.

Please vote below...

Score: 4.5

For

1.  For. User:JJPMaster (autofilled by Cassie)
2.  AAA. There are only around 10-20 active non-admins who are eligible for the extended-confirmed userright, and the risk of vandalism by trusted users is very low. The rollback button is always there, and if anything bad happens, we can move back to full protection. I can't see IPs waiting 30 days and editing 500 times just to vandalize one page. ~ Hipponias^CUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
3. I think it's terrible that it is protected. Users have frequently shifted the images to new ones or made subtle little changes (including myself). Obviously it's easy to undo bad edits but why shouldn't we be able to edit it? ShabiDOO 20:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
4.  For. If reverting vandalism was the main reason for fully protecting this page, then it seems like ECP will be a fine solution that allows people to edit it. And now that I think about, a lot of current events might make great additions to this page, including, yes, Gale5050, regular weather phenomena. MrX blow me 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
5.  Half-for I don't know what can be done to make the article funnier than it already is but if there are people who can make it funnier, it's worth a shot. RealLifeCartman (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
6.  For. WHAAAAAAAAA!T'S the worst that could happen? PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Against

1.  Against. User:Gale5050 (autofilled by Cassie) (Adding my rationale, which Cass approved) Let it be known, I am strongly against this ever so much it carries enough weight to cancel out the for votes. The reason why AAAAAAA! is fully protected is not just to protect it from vandalism. It is a symbol of Uncyclopedia. If you go to wp: Uncyclopedia it shows up. This is to keep it intact and not just protect it from vandals, but to keep it the best article we could produce. This has such extreme visibility, like the Main Page, which is full protected or UnNews which is fully protected, and as such not only is there a vandalism concern, it would lose integrity. Considering when you edit a fully protected page it says "Full protection is usually reserved for highly visited pages, such as AAAAAAAAA!. Most pages can be edited by everyone." A sysadmin would have to be poked to change that. As such I am strongly against this change because its not just to prevent vandalism. Also, I will strongly support a change where featured articles are extended confirmed protected, albeit that is a story for another time. Gale5050 aka Andrew5 let's talk! See me on WP! Do not click before August 13:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Gale nobody's vote is ever strong enough to cancel out multiple other users vote. This article has been edited by many users (including myself) after it was featured including adding new images and little tweaks that improve it. It was a tradition that had to stop once the page became a total pain in the ass to constantly revert vandalism. Now that the page can be protected from the worst of vandals, we can joyously return to making a few changes (which can easily be reverted by most users if they are bad ones). Your passion is admirable but just because you strongly feel anything doesn't cancel out the others. I (and probably the others here) strongly support this. ShabiDOO 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, if we're doing it by pure vote. Consensus may be used. Why don't you prove your strongly for, Shabidoo? You can still edit you're vote and counter this. Good luck! Gale5050 aka Andrew5 let's talk! See me on WP! Do not click before August 17:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Gale this belligerent attitude of yours here is an example of you making things on the website (especially forums and voting) draining and really anti-enjoyable. Remember again one of uncyclopedia's three pillars: "don't be a dick". I don't have to prove shit. Consider having a less aggressive approach to so MANY things. ShabiDOO 18:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, which is why at some point a forum should be made to require that(i.e. use consensus over voting.) It works fine on Wikipedia, and, by doing this, it would require people to justify rather then have a "you-can-vote-and-not-give-a-reason system", which should probably go away as that sucks. Gale5050 aka Andrew5 let's talk! See me on WP! Do not click before August 18:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh ShabiDOO 18:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Gale5050, you’re probably the only one here who thinks that consensus works fine on Wikipedia lol. MrX blow me 20:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Lol, thats so funny I'm just gonna pass on the diffs. Wonder what SMB99thx would say...Gale5050 aka Andrew5 let's talk! See me on WP! Do not click before August 20:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   This discussion being closed as "userfy" is the main reason I absolutely hate Wikipedia's consensus system. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, but RussianDewey hates it more. See [1]. Also, I like it because it encourages people to give strong reasoning on one side. As a matter or fact if I get unblocked, due to WPTC canvassing against me likely I will have less "support" or about equal. Consensus = critical, because otherwise, people can get away without discussing reasons, which is bad. I gave a huge reason why it shouldn't be lowered to ECP, so yeah, with conensus, someone would have to discuss why that isn't an issue, as I now persue a quest of protection requests. Gale5050 aka Andrew5 let's talk! See me on WP! Do not click before August 20:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Looking over AAAAAAAAA!, there's really no reason for its protection to be removed. IMO, it looks fine as-is, and doesn't need anybody to fiddle with it right now. Also the whole problem with editing featured articles is that (at least from what I heard) changing the article makes it somewhat not the article that was featured (sort of a Theseus' Ship Dilemma). I'm not strongly against editing it, I just feel that there's little-to-no need for it. Abstaining. WohMi, the Dueling King (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC}

Comments

• I don't have an incredibly strong opinion on this one way or the other, but I am slightly leaning against, just cuz I think it's cool that it has remained largely unchanged for so long. Can I ask tho, what kind of edits do people want to make to this page? MrX blow me 17:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• What are you going to add, another A? User:CandidToaster/sig 06:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• AAAAAAAAA! Edit ECP implemented on AAAAAAAAA!. If vandalism occurs I might have to bump it back up though...  Cassandra  (talk) 11:04am  March 26, 2021