Template talk:Sprotected/Archive 1

message: is the first vandal of George W. Bush under semi-protection, and he did so 2 minutes after registering the username.  Clearly, the time-delay aspect of semi-protection hasn't been implemented yet.
Probably we should introduce some artificial delays for registering an account... make them do captchas and answer skill-testing questions for about 30 to 60 seconds.  Something that can't be automated: random skill-testing questions like "how many legs does a dog have?" that any human can answer but would stump a registration bot.  This wouldn't be much of an annoyance to actual users, but would raise the hassle factor for throwaway accounts.  It's like spam... if you could charge 1 cent per e-mail message, spam becomes uneconomical.  Same concept. -- Curps 11:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Captchas can be defeated, although I doubt the average kiddie vandal is sophisticated enough to get around one.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, can you make a computer solve questions like "how many legs does a dog have?"  Just have enough questions, maybe on a MediaWiki namespace page, and a computer can't possibly get through it.  Bart133 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First vandal 

message: Didn't we all agree that semi-protection also protected against editing by newly-registered accounts?  Why does the template read "This page is temporarily protected from being edited by unregistered users" rather than what was discussed on the Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy page?  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of an unintentional bug in the implementation that is being worked on. -Splashtalk 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording of the template

message: In my opinion, this banner is too large, if it is to be used for extended periods of time. One good reason to semi-protect a page is to prevent vandalism after specific media attention draws a lot of readers, and vandalism, but the current banner feels hostile and defeatist.
Also, the text feels restrictive, when it should be inclusive.
My proposal:
	Editing this page is temporarily restricted to registered users in order to deal with vandalism. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection.
-- Ec5618 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is quite nice. Can I also suggest shrinking the lock to 25px, or getting rid of it altogether? -Splashtalk 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should come up with a logo that we can use for S-P only. Any ideas? I like using an icon. But yeah, that wording is better, I admit. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I really do actually quite like the wording suggested above. It's less of a kludge from {vprotect} and the grammar is smoother, not to mention the use of the word "restricted" being better. -Splashtalk 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, gotta remember Dan100 that we need it to be at least a little eye catching, even if it's a long term template. I've learned that on RfP. If the banners aren't big enough, people don't notice them and the purpose is defeated. We have huge warnings on the RfP page for people not to use the page for edit disputes but guess what people use it for? Fine line. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've reduced the size of my version to 35px (25px seems a bit cramped, to me). I'll agree with finding/creating a more fitting icon (though the template deserves an icon if it is to be used for extended periods of time), but would like to see the current template changed as soon as possible. -- Ec5618 00:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear how to introduce the fact that it is restricted to editors who are not unregistered or very new without kludging the grammar. -Splashtalk 12:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, obviously it's Editing this page is temporarily restricted to registered users with accounts older than 4 days..... since that is how it wound up getting implemented. -Splashtalk 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Um. Not sure that the protected template is an instruction. It's also informational. As for the icon, we need something eye catching, especially since this covers new accounts as well as IPs. We want to make sure that people with new accounts know that eventually, they will be able to edit the page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too big

message: I am going to change the template to add "newer accounts". We can change it again later. But SP is working now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not change the wording as well? -- Ec5618 09:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bug is fixed!

message: I suggest:
	Editing this page is temporarily restricted to registered users with accounts older than 4 days in order to deal with vandalism. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection.
Note the smaller (35px) lock. -- Ec5618 12:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Let's try it! Dan100 (Talk) 14:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. the current template as of my comment looks as though it's saying that only really new members are allowed to edit it, when it means to say that only "well-known" members or accounts older than 4 days can edit it. --ymmotrojam 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template suggestions

message: The "lock" image extends outside the box, and it distracts from the actual article. I like the proposal above that gets rid of it. Ashibaka tock 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock image is ugly

message: Shouldn't this page be only semi-protected? Matt Yeager 09:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, everything that is (currently) permanently protected should be semi-protected instead. —Locke Cole 09:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this page protected?

message: As a side note, I've uploaded an 8-bit transparent version of the lock icon used (maybe it's just me, but the white background on the JPEG makes a barely noticeable box around it when used on the template).. I'd like to propose using this PNG as a replacement for the JPEG. Here's two samples–
:
:
—Locke Cole 10:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just upload it as a .png? That way, you can have a transparent background... (see the WP logo). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 03:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er.. that's what I did. Or am I misunderstanding? —Locke Cole 14:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock icon

message: Right now the template reads: Editing of this page is temporarily restricted to registered users (other than new accounts) in order to deal with vandalism. To me, the parenthetical comment appears to be saying: "Editing is restricted to registered users, unless you're a new account," which is the opposite of what it means. I'm going to edit it in an attempt to simplify and clarify, and also to fix a problem I'm seeing in Safari where the lock icon appears to be falling out of the box (the box is too short for it, and so the bottom of the icon is below the bottom of the box). - Brian Kendig 14:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... the parenthesis have been removed, but I still find the wording a bit odd. The last sentence is awkward, but okay-enough, but I think we should emphasize the positive more on the part about new users (though I can't think of anything now, and as an admin, I can't really make changes while it's protected, unless it's for someone else). In any event, Happy Holidays to all, and to all a goodnight. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 03:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording? 

message: Should this template not be centered like every other one on Wikipedia?  --Comics 21:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centering 

message: This template looks very ugly on 1024x768 resolution. There are three lines, and the only word on the second line is "new". I suggest something like this:
	In order to deal with vandalism, editing of this page is temporarily restrictedto users who are logged into an account that is not new. Please discuss changes or request unprotection.
Or, perhaps, make it fit on two lines. -- RattleMan 01:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said! It's ugly on my screen, too. Not only that, the wording is ugly, though there's no easy way around that. Matt Yeager 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, that's three lines. The problem still remains. Matt Yeager 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template looks ugly 

message: Seriously. The template's ugly; that's the general consensus. Why are we stopping people from improving it by putting in full protection? Matt Yeager 02:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Publicity ... templates are easy targets for vandals to stick a penis in and make it show up on multiple pages. As such most high visibility templates are full protected.  ALKIVAR™ 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's high visibility, but no more so than, say, George W. Bush--that's only semi-protected. Tons of templates aren't protected, by the way--why is this one so much more more special? (Especially when it's so in need of improvement?) Matt Yeager 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's semi protected, not full protected. If you want to improve it, go ahead. You can. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection policy is clear that things should only be protected in response to vandalism, not as a preventative measure. Anyhows, I see that the protection is gone now. - Brian Kendig 13:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it doesn't make sense to protect these templates "permanently" anymore than it makes sense to protect articles permanently (which it doesn't, so generally they're only protected temporarily). I think "permanently" semi-protecting problem templates would address 90% of the vandalism associated with templates. —Locke Cole 14:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm... really... why IS this page protected?

message: The wording is too horrendous to look at, and I considered being bold (or assinine) and updating this template, but decided it would be better to get feedback first, so I'm submitting my changes:
New and anonymous users are temporarily restricted from editing this article to deal with vandalism.
It's still a bit awkward, and doesn't get it across completely, but it isn't as wtf-inducing as the current version. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysekurity (talk • contribs) 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I was bold and changed the template, at least a bit based on your idea. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I hate when I forget to sign! (Stupid MediaWiki...), but thanks for the change, and thanks for signing. I'm going to check it out now (nice tool, by the way!) -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Like this? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please try and keep it down to two lines though - three lines (often with just an orphan on the second) looks particulary ugly. Dan100 (Talk) 09:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really no way to control that. Some people may be viewing Wikipedia on an 800x600 laptop display (as I am right now); others may be viewing it on a display that's 1600 pixels wide, or more. Trying to wordsmith the template so that it doesn't flow a single word onto the next line, that'll never work unless everyone looks at it with the same-width window in the same browser using the same font. - Brian Kendig 13:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How's this? 

message: Isn't this template a self-reference? It only relates to the functionality of Wikipedia. If it is, I'm not familiar with the procedures that well but shouldn't the whole thing be put in a  tag or something? BigBlueFish 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self reference? 

message: ...after a month of little activity I come back to see semi-protection finally created. Good stuff. Marskell 17:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted. At the risk of offering another unneeded change, could the lock on this be changed (popped into my head example) to a yield sign or something that indicates caution rather than go away? And could it be reduced, say, to 75% of current (I think it's already been shrunk)? Finally, could we drop "as a result of vandalism"? Make the statement: "this page is prohibited to X and Y" and leave it there. If we have the policy (and damn we needed it) we should go ahead and say so. There is something to be said for being unintrusive and also for being decisive. Marskell 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention of vandalism should remain as a reminder to people that the tag should not be used for anything else. What's a yield sign? The hand in an octagon? That's probably much scarier than an impersonal lock. We need a half-open lock or something. -Splashtalk 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an UNLOADED gun ;)? Marskell 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank goodness.... 

message: I'd like to suggest that 'temporarily' be replaced with 'currently'.  There are plenty of sprotected articles that will likely stay that way until someone unplugs the last server, and saying 'temporarily' is disingenuous at best.  - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the only article likely to stay semi'd long term is George W. Bush. There is no basis in policy for keeping anything permanently protected, although some pages spend longer protected than others. WP:SEMI is for dealing with vandalism and the vast majority of vandals get bored pretty quickly when their playground is taken away and so the page can be unprotected quickly. It's a pity that many admins just "protect and forget", but that is their own fault (for which they need a slap), rather than any disingenuity on the part of the tag. -Splashtalk 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I patrol the protected pages list every day. Only articles that have been SP more than a week are Bush, disputed status of Gibraltar, history of Gibraltar and Bogdanov affair and those last 3 are special cases. Otherwise, the average time for semi protection is 3-4 days at most. It is temporary. And the 4 where it isn't are well known cases on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And these four cases (the latter three in any case) are still temporarily protected, I'm sure. -- Ec5618 13:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they are mostly permanent. I mean the Bush article has gone through periods of SP but they have been brief. The 2 Gibraltar articles are SP due to blocked user Gibraltarian, who is now up to 40 dynamic IPs that he has used as sockpuppets. He's said he'll never give up. And then Bogdanov Affair is basically an arbcom ruling. I don't see that unprotected in the neat future unless the controversy around the Bogdanovs ends and I doubt that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The boiler currently reads that semiprotection is temporary. If these articles are to be permanently protected, the boiler should be modifier to reflect that. Perhaps an optional modifier could change the text on specific articles (}}). Alternatively another template could be created, for specific use in these articles, but the tempatation to create wholly dissimilar templates would exist. In any case, adding this current boiler to the Bush article may not be entirely honest. -- Ec5618 13:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporarily

message: The template is still imposing and very ugly - which needlessly punishes articles that are unfortunate enough to suffer fate of being semi-protected. Can someone with adminstrator access please adjust the template at least so it uses smaller text? I feel Ec5618's were a step in the right direction. Cedars 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still ugly

message: Please add sort keys to the categories.  The following
:Category:Article header templates
:Category:Semi-protected
should change to
:
:
– Doug Bell talk•contrib 08:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit made by Alkivar. howcheng  {chat} 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to have sort keys added 

message: Replace current copyvio image with :Image:Lock-icon.png. Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done. -- Zondor 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace image

message: Please add the following to the page:
 
 ----
 ==See also==
 * Template:High-traffic
 * Template:P-protected
 
-- Zondor 06:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: add see also

message: There is some interest in using this feature on the English Wiktionary.  How is semi-protection accomplished?  Is it the simple addition of the category?  --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If you are familiar with full protection, it's similar. An admin has to change the status of the page so it goes from allowing all users to only allowing either accounts older than 4 days (semi protection) or just admins (full protection). Then we add the tag (usually). But the tag itself does nothing. WP:SEMI has more info. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That's what I suspected at first, but I saw nothing even remotely like "Block new and unregistered users" on the protection page at the sister project Wiktionary.  Any idea how that is added as a list item on the "Confirm protection" special page?  --Connel MacKenzie 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had to go to User:Brion VIBBER for that. I would suggest that for you as well. Or you can post at the technical part of the Village Pump. That's what I would recommend. It's something they have to enable on the server side. They did it for at least one other Wikipedia (Spanish) recently, so I don't think it'd be a big deal. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I'll catch up with Brion on IRC.  --Connel MacKenzie 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you all.  I caught up with Brion on IRC, and the requisite magic has been performed.  For future reference, this type of request is probably best handled by making a bugzilla request; enter a new bug of type "Wikimedia."  --Connel MacKenzie 20:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this implemented? 

message: There's an extra line break after the box, causing an extra gap to appear on articles. Please remove it. Thanks. Infinity0 talk 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove extra line-break 

message: Only regular Wikipedians know that in Wikispeak "Anonymous" means "unregistered". I have over 20,000 edits, but I am here anonymously in the real world meaning of the term. Cal isn't my real name, I have never told anyone on here what my real name is and they have no means of finding out other than asking me, which I would ignore. That is anonymity in my book. Please consider amending the text to read that editing by "Unregistered and recently registered users" is suspended, as that is what the template actually does. CalJW 05:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've changed the template. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your amendment is a big move in the right direction, but I don't think it's where it should be yet. I edited for a year before I had an account, so I was not "new" when I registered. I really think it should say "recently registered". Registration is the crux of this function so its role shouldn't be under represented in the public explanation of the template. CalJW 06:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The text is in Wikispeak and is incorrect in real world English