Commons talk:Protection policy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page protection...[edit]

Hardly seems valid to indefinitely page protect this page because of two cases of vandalism separated by a month. I propose that PP be removed. --J.smith (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It's just semi. Nowadays, that's pretty good for a policy on protection bro. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection should not be temporal. It should be based on the person who put it. Benson Favour (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to verify my profile thank you Hasnain Ali 512 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy use / visible files(!) protection[edit]

[move=sysop] and [upload=sysop] should be enough, isn't it? edit=sysop isn't needed. It came to my mind, that someone malicious could place redir on a file page to get another content displayed at file inclusions. But as far as I tested (temporarily) at File:AXMPtiffbeach.jpg redirs do not fire if there are file version - neither for the file content (thumb URL links) and |thumb| inclusions nor even for the file page File:AXMPtiffbeach.jpg. Can someone confirm this - or even has a link to the relevant MediaWiki code / doc?

If we are sure that edits cannot do harm the action=edit can be free. As such protections probably occur often at Commons I suggest to add one or two short sentences of advice/help how to protect (not for editing) such files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. edit=sysop restriction is not necessary for highly visoble files. Edit restriction can be set individually when there is excessive vandalism or edit warring about file's description. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tested again and made the change to the page now. Hope it is fine for everybody. --Saibo (Δ) 01:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It never was updated since we got [upload] control. So yes, the description page itself doesn't need to be protected due to the attached image being heavily used. Rocket000 (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Filter Off[edit]

Hi all; I need to add a link from the Welsh Help section here to a video Tutorial I've made on You Tube. Wiki-cy won't allow this link due to the Spam Filter; can anyone guide me please as to how do I turn it off on that Help Page? Many thanks - diolch yn fawr! Secondly, are there any new developments with the size of ogg files on Commons? Last time I looked they were too small for my purpose, as the user needs to see the cursor. - Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Strange semi-protected templates[edit]

Hi,
Many templates ({{Wikispecies}}, {{WikispeciesCompact}}, {{Taxonavigation}}...) that I maintain are protected but their protection is incoherent:

  • When I click on "See source code", they display a banner : "This page is semi-protected and can only be modified by registered users" (approximate translation as my language is french).
  • I am a long-registered User, but I cannot edit theses templates.

So either, there is a bug blocking my edition or the banner is buggy and should say that this template is fully protected and only an admin can edit it.
PS: I still dream of a 'authorized to change templates and modules' status not related to 'admin' status. An admin is not meant to develop templates and modules + A templates and modules editor may no wish to become admin.
Best regards, Liné1 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errata[edit]

Cascading protection affects included files, however it affects their file description pages also. That causes (besides other things) that description and categorization of files used at the main page cann't be improved. This behavior is assaulted in phab:T24521 as a bug.

Either replace the apostrophe with an O or remove one N from cann't. 59.153.235.208 05:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest amending Upload protection[edit]

with "A user with lacking rights will see this notice: You cannot overwrite this file. It is possible to ask for an upload protected image to be overwritten at Commons:Requested updates to protected images." (do notice the included comment) The rationale is for people seeing the notice to be able to find this explanation for it. Do you think this would be an improvement? --Palosirkka (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SQL queries to find templates and modules which are not protected and which are used on a lot of pages[edit]

Here are 2 queries: one for templates and one for modules which find pages with high number of uses or transclusions (over 500k) which are not fully protected. Some of the pages like i18n (internationalization) pages are meant to be edited by many people and semi-protection might be sufficient. Other pages should be protected. This message is a copy of a post to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, copied here so it can be found in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected pages[edit]

I can edit semi-protected pages on Wikipedia. Why can't I here? Victionarier (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High transclusion count[edit]

How do we define a "high transclusion count"? 100? 1000? pandakekok9 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Define times for vandalism semi protection[edit]

We do not have any guideline on when and how long a page should become protected due to vandalism. Pages with the same kind of vandalism get no to infinite protection. To get a consistent behavior on this I would propose the following simple and non binding guideline:

  • If page gets vandalized two times in two month my two different users the page should become infinitely semi protected.
  • If a pages get vandalized at least four times within a year the page should also become infinitely semi protected.

GPSLeo (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose in current form. I would request for modifications. Two times in a month and indefinite semi-protection? This doesn't sound okay to be. In fact, I would say, if a page gets vandalized more than three times within a week or so, it should be protected for a month only, and if vandalism continues thereafter, it can be protected for an indefinite period of time. Protection for two vandal edits is just going out of my head. I do not agree with the second proposal. If you are setting two vandal edits/per month a bar, then the vandal edits/per year should be 24? No? 4 vandal edits per year and protection, no, I do not agree with this kind of bureaucratic behavior. Sorry. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Three vandalism events within one week are very rare. I would be fine with with something like six month protection after two vandalism events in two month and infinite protection if the files get vandalized after this time. I do not think that this is to bureaucratic, we currently do not have any guideline on this resulting in very different treatment of page protection. GPSLeo (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After two vandal edits, the page doesn’t need to be protected at all, let alone infinitely, no matter if those two vandal edits happen within a decade, a year, a month or a minute. Protection should be used only if the level of vandalism is too much to be handled (or if we can’t afford showing vandalized content even for a short period of time, e.g. on the main page). Two vandal edits are way not too less to be unhandleable. After four vandal edits within a week, maybe a temporary protection of a week or month is okay. Infinite protection should be applied only if the vandalism continues persistently for months or years, where “persistently” means several vandal edits each month. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some examples of a typical vandalism history on file pages:
    Most of these cases would not be covered by a four edits in one week rule. And you also can see how long these vandalism was not reverted. If we do not get more people to patrol edits protecting the files would be the only solution. GPSLeo (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism not being reverted does not mean that we should go high-handed and protect files pre-emptively. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you suggest instead? Or do you think this kind of vandalism does not harm our project? GPSLeo (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism of any kind causes problems and damage but a high bureaucracy is going to cause more. What I think is to have Cluebot on Commons to revert this sort of vandalism because we have too little number of patrollers. I might not be personally interested in reverting vandalism because I happen to be occupied in some other areas and this is true of everyone who has their interested venues to take care of. Files and pages of my interest hardly get vandalised and this makes me relief and imo others feel relived the same way whilst the same time vandals do vandalism on pages that do not interest so many patrollers who can revert the edit on time. Lets have the Cleubot man. Protection is something very higher with the vandal edits being just 3/m. ;) ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. Such guideline is not needed at all. You said: "Pages with the same kind of vandalism get no to infinite protection." So what? This does not need to be regulated. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

Suggestion: "delicate location" instead of "dangerous". -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Poor wording, IMO, but protected page -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of wording[edit]

I would like to propose the following addition to this policy, following the addition of a new protection group for autopatrollers:

Autopatroller protection only allows editing for users with the autopatrolled right. It should only be used where semi-protection has been proven to be ineffective to combat disruption (in cases such as vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.)

—Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

page protection[edit]

Can I request my page to be unprotected by whoever is trying to take over my page? I cant actually ask them directly because the page I created 1/31 says no edits, it also says I dont have a user page and also says the page is protected. If my request is approved can My page be protected from future takeovers? Prettytata253 (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prettytata253: Hi, and welcome. What is the page name, exactly? If you are writing about en:User talk:Prettytata253, please stop adding email addresses there, that will only get you spam.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies between sites[edit]

I have noticed that the lock icons for page protection vary between sites. This page displays what I believe to be the entire collection of lock icons across Wikimedia (this is just a guess.) Why isn't there a standard? MorpheusTalk • Contribs 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Morpheus7377: Different communities have different consensuses on which lock icons they like the best for pages on their projects. We try to serve all of them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Protection_policy&oldid=875602773"