 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 4 February 2009 by Soldier 1033. |
I was browsing Special:SpecialPages last night and found an option only available to administrators called "Protect site" under the "Other special pages" section.
The following are the options that may be used to semi- or fully protect parts or all of this wiki for up to 24 hours.
Allow creation of new accounts by
- All users
- Registered users and sysops
- Sysops only
Allow creation of pages by
- All users
- Registered users and sysops
- Sysops only
Allow editing of pages by
- All users
- Registered users and sysops
- Sysops only
Allow moving of pages by
- Registered users and sysops
- Sysops only
Allow file uploads by
- Registered users and sysops
- Sysops only
Timeout: (Maximum: 24 hours)
I'm guessing this has never been used for and it probably isn't a good idea to use it unless there is an extreme emergency, but I think that there should be a policy so this option is never misused and so admins know when to use it, how to use it, and for how long to enable it.
I don't think it's visible by non-sysops, but it can be accessed by going to Special:Protectsite. Andrew talk 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we already protected the site once now. I agree that we should have some sort of policy on it, like when it should be used. User:C Teng/sig 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and I take responsibility for anything that might have caused issues during the protect site. However, we had a persistent vandal that was continually making new accounts, and had both myself and Sir Revan working to block and delete the spam. I saw it a necessary step to ensure the safety of the encyclopedia and to allow central time to run a checkuser. My initial protect site was for 30 minutes, and when that expired, the vandal came back, and I had yet to hear anything from central. But back to discussing the policy. I agree that it's drastic, and a policy that includes this needs to be brought up quick in the event that something like today happens again. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you did the right thing, Karlis. See my rough draft of the policy below. Andrew talk 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, this is the second time to the best of my knowledge that this feature has ever been used, the first was on the 23rd of June '08 (the protection lasted 2 hours) after the wiki was attacked by multiple vandal bots, within a ten minute timeframe, before Uberfuzzy and Dechainex were able to block the bots and issue the site protection.-- 02:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you did the right thing, Karlis. See my rough draft of the policy below. Andrew talk 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Protectsite policy - Rough draft
Here's a watered down version of it. The full version can be accessed at RuneScape:Protectsite.
The ProtectSite feature may be used in the event of:
- Extreme vandalism by one or more users that occurs at a fast enough pace that administrator(s) cannot keep up
& A wiki-wide update (for example, if major changes were being made to templates that would affect 500 articles)
The site should only be fully protected if the vandalism is caused by multiple autoconfirmed users. In other cases a site-wide semi-protection should be used instead. The length of the protection is generally decided at the discretion of the administrator enabling the protection. Abuse of this feature can lead to the revoking of sysop privileges and all site-wide protections, semi- or full, must be reviewed by the community on the Yew Grove to determine whether or not they were necessary and to decide whether or not any recourses should be taken against the administrator in question.
The protecting sysop must also notify the wiki of the protection and how long the protection will last via the MediaWiki:Sitenotice.
What do you all think? Andrew talk 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- Support - as nominator for this policy. Andrew talk 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Site-wide protections may (and have) become necessary. As such, I think it's best that we put administrators' minds at rest. They should know that they will be praised, not disciplined, for protecting the site under certain circumstances.
- REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Admins should also state which options they set when they post the protection notice.
Laser Dragon 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC) - Support - I agree with this. If what Luckytoilet is saying is true, about this person creating a vandalbot, we're going to need to get something done, quick. I was going to set a Site Notice, but I was a bit more concerned, at the time, with ensuring that the vandal was stopped. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - With the recent string of attacks and by the means necessary to address these issues our options are becoming more limited to address these mass vandals. This would help a lot. 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - This guy is really starting to get on my nerves. It'd be nice if we had a way to deal with him. WWTDD? 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support - With this mass vandalism, admins should know how to react to the situation and this policy will probably help a lot. No reason why the wiki shouldn't have this policy. C.ChiamTalk 15:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Undecided- Well this seems like a nice way to go in the way of preventing vandalism, but then protecting the entire wiki would prevent honest users from editing and instead give my friend the satisfaction of doing so much damage to the wiki. Other vandals like him may come back time to time and force the wiki to be protected again. Plus if one wiki is protected there are still hundreds of others to vandalize, so no- I don't think this is a good solution. But the idea is good. Luckytoilet 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- We aren't saying this is a solution, we're saying that there needs to be a policy for this tool to ensure that there isn't any abuse. Andrew talk 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment We should add that the protecting sysop should update the sitenotice to the policy. From reading the forums, there were a few confused users who thought they were banned. Laser Dragon 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the community has reached a consensus I have put the policy into effect and archived this discussion. Andrew talk 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)