Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/FA Protection
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in new Senate Hall or Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should protect our FAs by making it so that vandals, even if unblocked, are unable to edit them. If you were a vandal, how tempting would an FA be? To stop them, we need to think like them. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not possible, not practical, and not necessary. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per Acky. I don't think vandals put enough thought into what they're vandalizing. They just go to common pages, i.e. Yoda. Most of our FAs are of an obscure nature. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not needed, if someone vandalizes something we revert it... if they vandalize "enough" they get blocked from editing every page on the wiki. That's enough... and... what you're proposing isn't even possible. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there are ways to prevent reversion. I won't say much more, so the sick minded vandals reading this won't get ideas. However, there are ways. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain on the IRC channel? I'm curious about this. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, what vandal looks here anyway? Basically, all you need to do is double edit a page. That makes it hard to undo the first edit. Unless I've missed something, you can't undo successive edits. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are several ways. First and foremost, you can manually edit out what someone's done, though that's not always possible. Otherwise, you can select and previous version in the history, and click save. Additionally, admins or people with rollback can easily undo multiple edits by one user. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, what vandal looks here anyway? Basically, all you need to do is double edit a page. That makes it hard to undo the first edit. Unless I've missed something, you can't undo successive edits. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Care to explain on the IRC channel? I'm curious about this. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there are ways to prevent reversion. I won't say much more, so the sick minded vandals reading this won't get ideas. However, there are ways. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not needed, if someone vandalizes something we revert it... if they vandalize "enough" they get blocked from editing every page on the wiki. That's enough... and... what you're proposing isn't even possible. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per Acky. I don't think vandals put enough thought into what they're vandalizing. They just go to common pages, i.e. Yoda. Most of our FAs are of an obscure nature. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, allow me to clear up several points here. First, we used to and possibly still do protect the current FA with semi-protection, just without the template. Second, vandals love to pick on the current FA in glaring ways, especially if it isn't protected, just so they can mess with casual observers. And it's still a good idea to protect all the current FAs, IMHO. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right, but it's not possible to block un-blocked users from editing certain pages, which I think he also meant. I agree with you on the semi-protection thing, though last time I suggested it in IRC I got my head bitten off by Sikon. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- True. And the semi-protection thing is *generally* regarded by several admins as a necessary preventive measure for providing minimal disruption of the wiki. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- True. And the semi-protection thing is *generally* regarded by several admins as a necessary preventive measure for providing minimal disruption of the wiki. Atarumaster88
- Right, but it's not possible to block un-blocked users from editing certain pages, which I think he also meant. I agree with you on the semi-protection thing, though last time I suggested it in IRC I got my head bitten off by Sikon. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
