Wikidata:Requests for comment/semi-protection to prevent vandalism on most used Items (part 2)
From Wikidata
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "semi-protection to prevent vandalism on most used Items (part 2)" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- stale --Pasleim (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is sequel to Wikidata:Requests for comment/semi-protection to prevent vandalism on most used Items.
Questions[edit]
6. Should other entities using more efficient means of protection be changed to semi-protection?[edit]
Yes[edit]
No[edit]
- A little oppose, because of phab:T54971, we should consider this is a vandalism or not case-by-case, if one day 3 Incubator-like wikis has sitelink supported, then actions like this will not be able to avoid. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Should unconfirmed users be allowed to edit Wikidata ?[edit]
Yes[edit]
- Mar del Sur (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and should still allow non-proxy IP users with good behaviors to edit. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
8. Should administrator Abian be sanctioned for implementing semi-protection without prior update of the protection policy or community consultation?[edit]
Yes[edit]
No[edit]
- The administrator in question does not, afaik, have any history of making similar mistakes, and I don't think it's likely that having them continue as an administrator carries much risk of such a mistake being repeated in the future. --Yair rand (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was poor judgment. But, we shouldn't be in the business of desysopping for first offenses unless it was very serious. --Rschen7754 03:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mar del Sur (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is ad hominem (Q189183). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no link to evidence that this could be considered as undesirable and this question is a bit not fitting to other asked here Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9. Should there have some policy texts to indicate that in which cases, a semi-protected item can be upgraded to fully-protect?[edit]
Yes[edit]
- Support, in cases that are handled by Wikidata:Requests for comment/Countries, subdivisions, and disputed territories, if a disputed territory-related item has edit wars, then it's unlikely that a non-admin user can technically stop it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
10. Should there have some policy texts to indicate that in which cases, a fully-protected item can be downgraded to semi-protect?[edit]
Yes[edit]
- Support Suggest to apply for Project:Village pump (Q16503) in one day future (if technically allows). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No[edit]
Comments[edit]
- As apparently, its proponent didn't want more questions on Wikidata:Requests for comment/semi-protection to prevent vandalism on most used Items, here it is on a separate page. --- Jura 16:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not serious. I've been delighted to receive questions and suggestions (and have received them through several channels) during all the days that the RfC has been in draft status; however, as you should imagine, you cannot unilaterally change my RfC once it has started. Regardless, none of the questions you've written here makes any sense to me. The last question, "Should administrator Abian be sanctioned for implementing semi-protection without prior update of the protection policy or community consultation?", which mentions me, shows a complete lack of knowledge about how Wikidata works; this is a project built by volunteers and, therefore, "sanctions" don't exist here, administrative actions like blocks are just tools to stop bad edits or toxic behavior, and this is one of your messages and actions with which you're simply bordering on harassment. You haven't participated yet in the RfC or provided a single constructive comment about the problem the RfC addresses in weeks, but you keep a childish attitude trying by all means to get me blocked, or to get some of my flags withdrawn, or whatever you personally consider a punishment for me, even if such a think doesn't exist here. I'm warning you, and I'm not kidding, I'm not going to let the harassment continue. --abián 01:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Abián: If the community doesn't trust someone to use the admin tools, those tools can be taken away. Suggesting doing so is not, on its own, harassment. (I really don't think having an RFC for the question is appropriate, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of this RFC before and abian didn't bother mentioning it when I asked them to unprotect the items. Anyways, I moved them here after abian disagreed. It seems that they don't want the questions to be asked. Imagine what their response was when I asked them to unprotect the items after there wasn't much support on the admin noticeboard for their conduct: they wouldn't unprotect the item, effectively leaving other volunteers to clean up after them ([1]). --- Jura 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not serious. I've been delighted to receive questions and suggestions (and have received them through several channels) during all the days that the RfC has been in draft status; however, as you should imagine, you cannot unilaterally change my RfC once it has started. Regardless, none of the questions you've written here makes any sense to me. The last question, "Should administrator Abian be sanctioned for implementing semi-protection without prior update of the protection policy or community consultation?", which mentions me, shows a complete lack of knowledge about how Wikidata works; this is a project built by volunteers and, therefore, "sanctions" don't exist here, administrative actions like blocks are just tools to stop bad edits or toxic behavior, and this is one of your messages and actions with which you're simply bordering on harassment. You haven't participated yet in the RfC or provided a single constructive comment about the problem the RfC addresses in weeks, but you keep a childish attitude trying by all means to get me blocked, or to get some of my flags withdrawn, or whatever you personally consider a punishment for me, even if such a think doesn't exist here. I'm warning you, and I'm not kidding, I'm not going to let the harassment continue. --abián 01:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: I don't understand questions 6 and 7: about 6, could you explain which "more efficient means of protection" do you mean? about 7, users become autoconfirmed after 4 days and 50 edits ... if unconfirmed aren't allowed to edit Wikidata (probably I haven't correctly understood), how can they become confirmed? Thank you, --Epìdosis 20:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (6) some we already use and the respond may know about (or not). (7) After being obligated to create a user account, they could be explicitly confirmed by some admin (similar to some user being burdened with editing semi-protected items on their behalf). --- Jura 20:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really tempted to just delete this RfC as a Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (Q4657775) (i.e. POINTy) out-of-process addition to the RfC that serves no purpose. The first proposal makes zero sense. The second proposal is explicitly one of the things the foundation would veto, while the third does not belong here, but at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal. @Jura1: is asked to give me a single reason to believe otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 and 7 are legitimate questions, but 8 is not. Rschen7754 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 is already decided: the foundation will not permit the blanket restriction of editing by IP's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 7 is the practical outcome of protecting an ever growing number of items merely based on use. The points raised here aren't much different from what was mentioned on admin noticeboard and abian's talk page. It seems they either ignore these points or don't understand more efficient ways to achieving the same. --- Jura 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: So you are not disputing that you created this in bad faith only to illustrate a point about Abian's original RfC? Please withdraw this "part 2", or I will put it up for RfD or just close it as out of process. I'm definitely not amused and you didn't convince me of anything by opening it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the questions could easily have fit into the other RFC (which is why I added them there) and input from the community on the questions is welcome. As it's a separate RFC, there is nothing really out of process about it. --- Jura 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is out of process for several reasons. For one, a "sequel" cannot come during the original RfC. For another, if you want to start another RfC, you should use a manifestly different title from the original to avoid confusion. But the biggest reason is that you clearly made this in bad faith (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (Q4657775)) since the questions are obviously jokes; the questions you wanted to add aren't appropriate anywhere on the project (whether it be a new page, as you did, or the original RfC), and I consider it quite disruptive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the questions could easily have fit into the other RFC (which is why I added them there) and input from the community on the questions is welcome. As it's a separate RFC, there is nothing really out of process about it. --- Jura 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: So you are not disputing that you created this in bad faith only to illustrate a point about Abian's original RfC? Please withdraw this "part 2", or I will put it up for RfD or just close it as out of process. I'm definitely not amused and you didn't convince me of anything by opening it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 6 and 7 are legitimate questions, but 8 is not. Rschen7754 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1, Epìdosis, Abián, Yair rand, Jasper Deng:@Rschen7754, Mar del Sur, Jc86035: I boldly added two more questions here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]