Protected page

Forum:Revisiting "Protection for all templates, and more user access levels"

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Revisiting "Protection for all templates, and more user access levels"
Note: This topic has been unedited for 369 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Back in August 2019, there was a Ministry of Love discussion about the implementation of the following things:

  1. The indefinite semi-protection of all templates and Lua modules
  2. The creation of three new user groups that exist on Wikipedia: extended confirmed, template editor, and edit filter helper.

I came here to more formally propose this idea, given the fact that there seemed to be strong support for implementing some of these options, and I cannot find any other discussion about it. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So, here are the options originally given in that Ministry of Love discussion (note that I copied them word-for-word):

Protecting the Template and Module namespace from vandals

As one may know, the Template and Module namespaces (Namespaces 10 and 828 respectively) are ones that are critical for the functioning of various Uncyclopedia pages. While some of those pages are protected or semi-protected as an anti-vandal measure, templates that are transcluded onto pages, and modules fueling templates, can be vandalized by various IPs and new users, which poses a significant danger to the integrity of many pages, including the main page and other frequently visited pages such as AAAAAAAAA!. Therefore, I am asking whether all templates and modules should be automatically semi-protected; this will protect many critical pages from vandalism.

More access levels and forms of protection

Uncyclopedia has many access levels: starting from the lowest (IPs), you have users, autoconfirmed users, users with rollback, admins (sysops) and bureaucrats. These few access levels are rather limited compared to Wikipedia. I will detail into a few of these below.

Extended-confirmed users and protection

On Wikipedia, an extended-confirmed user is one with 500 edits or more, and that has had an account for more than 30 days. This will allow for articles that are prone to vandalism even when semi-protected to be protected further, without locking down the page solely to admins. This could easily be of use on Uncyclopedia, and can replace full protection on high traffic pages such as AAAAAAAAA! and high-use templates. Whether this should be implemented would depend on how everyone thinks about it.

Template editors and template protection

Many crucial templates on Wikipedia are protected via "template protection" instead of full protection. By using "template protection" and allowing a certain subset of non-administrator users (template editors) to edit these templates, this would allow quite a few skilled users to be able to improve Uncyclopedia's templates. This one should be simple enough to implement.

Edit filter helper permission

This permission, although not included as a separate userrole in Wikipedia, could be useful to some users on Uncyclopedia. Whether this should be implemented should be left up to the community on Uncyclopedia. This permission could also be bundled with another user-role (such as extended-confirmed).

Edit: Flagged Revisions & pending changes protection

On Wikipedia, there is a system which allows articles that are prone to IP vandalism, but where the vandalism isn't extensive enough to warrant semi-protection, which requires IP edits to be approved by users in the reviewer user group. If we are to implement this, I would suggest that the reviewer permission be automatically granted to the extendedconfirmed user group, but it may also warrant a separate thing.

My take on things here

What I feel is needed is especially extended-confirmed protection, which should be mandatory for all templates and modules. Template protection is kind of unneeded since we just use full-prot instead.

Additionally, an "edit filter helper" role would be pretty useful; basically, a role that allows a user to see all edit filters, including private ones, but without editing them - therefore, allowing them to suggest changes or otherwise.  Cassandra  (talk) 08:13pm  January 28, 2021

Yeah, extended-confirmed protection will be very useful for templates. Also, @Cassie: by "edit filter" do you mean the abuse filter? ~ HipponiasCUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Yup! Uncyclopedia says "abuse filter" but Wikipedia says "edit filter" instead.  Cassandra  (talk) 08:31pm  January 28, 2021
Just asking out of interest, what format is the abuse filter in? I guess it's js/regexp. Anyways, I strongly support letting adding the extended-confirmed userright and letting them view abuse filters. ~ HipponiasCUN - Talk - Contribs - Articles  08:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a Mediawiki-specific format that uses regex and others.  Cassandra  (talk) 04:36pm  January 29, 2021

Straw poll!

Let's vote, I think.

Indefinitely protecting the entire Template and Module namespaces

Votes

Score: 3

Extended confirmed protection and user group

Votes

Score: 5

Template editor protection and user group

Votes

Score: -3
  • Symbol declined.svg Against. Redundant with full protection, at least in Uncyclopedia's context.  Cassandra  (talk) 04:38pm  January 29, 2021
  • Symbol declined.svg Against. As I understand it, Wikipedia's template editor user rights are given to coders without going through the dramatic RfA. Our template needs are nothing like Wikipedia's, and I don't see this being necessary. MrX blow me Emoji-drool.gif 17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Against. User:Gale5050 (posted by  Cassandra  (talk) on behalf of) 1:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain. As per above. Black-2.jpg PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 23:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter helper/abuse filter helper user group

Votes

Score: 2.5

Pending changes system

Votes

Score: 1
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Because even though we have more liberal semi protection, it hinders on IPs. I think this should be part of the rollbacker usergroup if consensus is not strong enough to make a group but there is consensus to add it. User:Gale5050 (posted by  Cassandra  (talk) on behalf of) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Against. User:MrX (posted by  Cassandra  (talk) on behalf of) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC) (Adding my rationale, thanks Kev for posting my vote). Let me be clear, I am strongly against adding the pending changes reviewer user group for editors AND I am strongly against adding the pending changes protection level for articles. Adding extended confirmed to both is a simple addition to the things we already have, and "older" members of Uncyc who might return after we implement it (if we do) probably wouldn't even notice. Adding PCR is not that simple. It looks more confusing to some people, especially new editors who would probably be wondering why they were able to make edits but not see them in the article. It does shake things up unnecessarily whereas extended confirmed does not. Why do we need to protect every featured article? IMO we don't, but we do it at least for the 5-day period that it's on the main page so that it remains intact while it's in the spotlight. This is not just to protect it from vandalism, but to keep it in its feature-worthy form, so PCR would not be a suitable substitute. Semi protection and extended confirmed protection are both great, simple ways to prevent disruption. PCR is not simple, and I'm not even sure why Wikipedia uses it when they have sp and ecp. I honestly think they have it just to appease overzealous editors who will never be admins and let them do a little "hat collecting". MrX blow me Emoji-drool.gif 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol for vote.svg For. Seriously. Why do we need to semi-protect EVERY featured article, when we could just use PCR instead? Have a good day, and may Sophia bless you, JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 23:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain. Not sure about this one. Black-2.jpg PF4Eva, the President of Imagination Vote for me My tax returns 23:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done

Ish, maybe. Also we are never enabling flaggedrevisions, hell no. -— Lyrithya ༆ 23:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=Forum:Revisiting_%22Protection_for_all_templates,_and_more_user_access_levels%22&oldid=6183070"