Forums: Yew Grove > Semi-protecting RS:CVU
 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 1 September 2008 by Skill. |
Based on the vandalism of 69.148.16.122, should we semi-protect the RS:CVU? XDRAGONAITE +
02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- No. Just because one IP vandalized once, doesn't mean we should protect the whole page. What if an unregistered or new user wanted to report vandalism? They wouldn't be able to, and the vandal might vandalize more because they weren't blocked. User:C Teng/sig 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also No. The CVU should be a place where nearly anybody (including IP users, if appropriate) to raise the issue about potential vandalism. I keep this page on my watchlist, and keep very close tabs on what is written there. Indeed, what was written by that particular individual was more akin to somebody writing "Please block my account, I'm an idiot and hate all admins!"
- While I don't speak for all admins on this issue, I evaluate every report individually and review all of their edits carefully before deciding to impose a user block, even on the most obvious of vandals. I've even disagreed with some reports and have done nothing at all in some cases. Vandalism of the sort that reports random IP addresses or other nonsense would in turn raise the issue that it was reported by a vandal, and it in turn would be dealt with just as swiftly as the above action. In other words, this is the worst possible page for a vandal to strike and not just because of little old me either. --Robert Horning 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we should block a whole user group because of the actions of one person. Sorta like what the Americans did to the Japanese-Americans in WW2, put them in camps while most of them were innocent. Ok that was a bit of a far fetched analogy but even IPs do report vandalism every now and then, it's not like all IPs are vandals, assume good faith.
Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are legitimate reasons to block IP address users (aka anon or users not logged in), but I don't think the RS:CVU page meets those requirements. In general, it should be very high profile pages (aka the "Main Page" of the wiki) and other informational pages that get high traffic and generally require low maintenance or don't require edits by very many users. Admin user pages, IMHO, also fit this sort of requirement (which can be a target of vandalism). But those are exceptions rather than the rule for a wiki. --Robert Horning 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think we should block a whole user group because of the actions of one person. Sorta like what the Americans did to the Japanese-Americans in WW2, put them in camps while most of them were innocent. Ok that was a bit of a far fetched analogy but even IPs do report vandalism every now and then, it's not like all IPs are vandals, assume good faith.
- Just look through the page history, generally the only time IP's use RS:CVU is when they vandalise. Such as this incident where an IP removed the entire "Current vandalism" section. I think protection is not necessary, but it would not hurt to have it. Vandalizing the CVU page is like breaking into a cop station - it won't go unnoticed or unpunished.
CFLM Talk # Sign 09:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
