UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/Page Protection

Page Protection
List here any pages that should be protected. (See also: Protect Log)


:Due to the importance of this page, I believe it should be protected. We don't want a non-administrator to make up the copyright information for this website. --Aristeo 17:26, 1 May 2006 (EDT)
::It's protected now. Either it was already locked, another sysop beat me to it. --Wrye 21:19, 1 May 2006 (EDT)


:I've made some edits to the disclaimer (expanded the stub), which should be looked at by a sysop. If the article looks good, it should be locked due to the importaince of the page. (Mostly for the same reasons the Copyrights page was locked.) --Aristeo 14:45, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
::I've rolled it back a little and protected it. Contents should be pretty minimal, so long as they say what needs to be said. --Wrye 19:19, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
:::Okay, I understand. Good idea. :)  But do you think it should be protected? It's protected on Wikipedia, and it would be pretty dangerous legally if someone malicously messed with it. --Aristeo 23:40, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
::::Wrye Toast. Now it's protected. --23:58, 2 May 2006 (EDT)

Index.php
:A spammer keeps making the page, and entering a list of items that looks like it's trying to get hits from a search engine. Fushi 16:01, 2 May 2006 (EDT)
::Done. Thanks Aristeo and Fushi for catching this stuff! --Wrye 19:19, 2 May 2006 (EDT)


:I apologize for continuously bothering you, Wrye, but I found another one. This page contains an archive of the older news found on the main page. That being said, the only thing that someone can do on this page is vandalize it. In any case, best kept protected, eh? --Aristeo 18:06, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
::Done (I have powers too!) Garrett  19:51, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
:::Heh. :P --Aristeo 02:33, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

Template:Newsitem
:This template is being used on the Main_Page. Editing the template could corrupt the main page (accident or not), which would not be desirable. I'll keep a lookout for situations such as this one, where a editable template could mess up an importaint protected page. --Aristeo 02:33, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

:: Protected! -- Endareth  02:59, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

:::Yay! -- Aristeo 03:37, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

/
:Two for one deal here. ;) These are not on "High Alert" like the other pages were, but Daveh (being the site owner) is probally the only one qualified to edit these pages. --Aristeo 03:37, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
::Done and done. Garrett  03:57, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

 (Semi)
:This page recieves a lot of abuse from new members. I know that unregistered people cannot edit pages, but is there a way to prevent new editors from editing this page? If so, could it be applied to this page? --Aristeo 18:48, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
::This page may suffer some abuse, but also gets most new content from new members, who often provide brand new "accidents" or raise valid doubts - a fast, easy and efficient revert feature would be highly appreciatedto prevent outright vandalism, but I think some 2-3 vigilant, active moderators are a way better protection for this page than any kind of automated filters :) (plus added benefit, containing the vandals to pretty much one place. Lock this and you'll have them all over the site!)
::I don't expect this page to "reach the high standards" ever, because it will be in constant flux and new content will keep being added in rough&dirty form, but the rough&dirty can be polished and keep the resource as rich as possible, attempts to keep it squeaky clean by locking it in a glass display case will just prevent it from growing.
::Sure we could have some kind of "add here" page and just require to add content to a separate "rough and dirty" page, then move it to "core article" while filtering and polishing the form, but... are we able to handle the resulting workload?
::Most problems come from misunderstanding and disagreeing what a glitch is (abusing/exploiting a bad design decision? Using a console command to make some trick possible? Hard/Impossible to reproduce sequence of events leading to hilarity?). I think handy descriptions of the sections in the TOC, stating what is covered by each should nicely settle this.--Vook 14:36, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
:::I think you have some very good points. Such good points in fact, that I retract my opinion in semi-protecting the  page. --Aristeo 16:20, 1 June 2006 (EDT)