Rootology retires Options

[MZMcBride]

Indeed, J.delanoy in his vandal-whacking exuberance appears to forget to set expiries an awful lot.

Or maybe he has, in his wisdom, decided that indefinite semi-protection is inappaopriate, and by not checking with him you're being something of a shithead?

Some of those users have an anon talk page in compliance with the protection policy.

Some are victims of severe and protected harassment.

Quite apart from the question of who's "protecting" harassment, is this supposed to be an argument in favour of your blanket unprotections?

Edit: Oh, I see, you only unprotected fourteen of them. I presume that those would be the ones who haven't been the victims of protected harassment? Though I've got PersianPoetGal's page watchlisted for some reason or another, and I can promise you she's gotten a lot of harassment there. Not sure whether or not it's of the protected variety.

Elsewhere on WR you recently posted that you'd been increasingly snarky in your comments here and that perhaps you needed a break from posting here. If I were making a list of "Key Indications That a Break is Needed," I think I'd put calling fellow admins "shitheads" somewhere near the top.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Elsewhere on WR you recently posted that you'd been increasingly snarky in your comments here and that perhaps you needed a break from posting here. If I were making a list of "Key Indications That a Break is Needed," I think I'd put calling fellow admins "shitheads" somewhere near the top.

Fair point. I think I can abstain from further such remarks, but if I can't I'll take that break.

(Also, Xeno, apologies for the remark. It probably wasn't the most constructive way of expressing my objection to your unprotections.)

No, it's defined by the protection policy and past precedent.

"Indefinite" far too often becomes "permanent" because no one bothers to check back on it.

Has it occurred to you that "indefinite" protections are sometimes legitimately intended to be definitely permanent?

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Thu 16th July 2009, 7:50pm

[Apathetic]

No worries re: the remark.

No, it's defined by the protection policy and past precedent.

"Indefinite" far too often becomes "permanent" because no one bothers to check back on it.

Has it occurred to you that "indefinite" protections are sometimes legitimately intended to be definitely permanent?

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

For the most part, the indefinite protections weren't meant to be permanent, nor were they necessary. Out of 267 articles where I lowered the permanent semi-protected, only 51 had the semi-protection back in place 4 months later. (See User:Xeno/unprotects )

Thanks to MZM for crunching the data on that.

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Thu 16th July 2009, 8:09pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Or "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, except for a tiny portion of the pages which have been indefinitely semi-protected for good reason and that only account holders with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit"?

Hell, there are plenty of indefinitely semi-protected templates; I presume you have no objection to most of those. That suggests that we agree on the principle, and differ only in degrees.

[Apathetic]

Hell, there are plenty of indefinitely semi-protected templates; I presume you have no objection to most of those. That suggests that we agree on the principle, and differ only in degrees.

Plenty of fully protected templates too, but it's unlikely an IP would make a helpful drive-by edit there. I understand the need for liberal protection on templates being that vandalism can be spewed widely and the way caching works it might take a while for it to squid out depending on the size of the job queue.

Note also my edit to the post to which you replied, not sure if you replied prior to seeing it. Many of them were an admin who had a policy of applying indefinite semi-protection along with move=sysop after pagemove vandalism. And also a bunch from before protections could have an expiry. So no, they certainly weren't meant to be permanent.

We've strewn way off topic from root's retirement, so a mod should probably split.

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Thu 16th July 2009, 8:15pm

[One]

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.

[MZMcBride]

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.

I think the point about admins setting protection indefinitely and forgetting about the page are valid. From what I've seen, that's the case in a lot of these protections. (And it's not limited to just protections, IP blocks have the same issue.)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I think the point about admins setting protection indefinitely and forgetting about the page are valid. From what I've seen, that's the case in a lot of these protections.

It wasn't the case with the indef semi of mine that Xeno lifted without consulting me (though I was on wikibreak at the time, so it's perhaps not reasonable to expect that he would have).

[Apathetic]

I think the point about admins setting protection indefinitely and forgetting about the page are valid. From what I've seen, that's the case in a lot of these protections.

It wasn't the case with the indef semi of mine that Xeno lifted without consulting me (though I was on wikibreak at the time, so it's perhaps not reasonable to expect that he would have).

I assume you're talking about Ctrl+Alt+Del. I was particularly astonished to find an indefinitely semi-protected article with an indefinitely semi-protected talk page. It's just the kind of subject a drive-by IP might improve.

But I understand there's been some fairly severe abuse on that page, so I don't fault you. A case for flagged protection I guess.

[Floydsvoid]

I'm not in a position to complain, but can't these Wikipediots take their conversation elsewhere

[LaraLove]

<snip>

The Wiki's plan can work without one BLP, and it can even work without giving unaccountable users the opportunity to mar BLPs, templates, or even Rootology's talk page.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

I don't believe I was making an argument, so I don't doubt it's flawed. I was making fun of what I call open editing fundamentalists. The Wiki will survive without IPs editing some articles, templates, and even a semi-active admin's talk page.

<snip>

Preemptive article protection might discourage new contributors in high-traffic areas, but any IP address posting on his talk page during JoshuaZ-Rootology drama is unlikely to be a newbie. As a wise woman said, "The WR IP contribs never help any given situation."

If you weren't making an argument, what were you making with that wall of text?

I already pointed out that I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected. I was simply noting that your whatever was flawed, because you mentioned vandalism where there wasn't any.

[Casliber]

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.

Yeah, I wonder, who out of 'anyone' does the ability to make 10 edits and 4 days actually exclude or restrict.....
Cas

[Malleus]

Then we really ought to be changing the motto of the project to "the encyclopedia that any account holder with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can edit".

Standby ANYONECANEDIT fundamentalist "argument." (Not actually a complete argument, because it assumes there would be something wrong with only allowing accounts to edit.) It would be a vaguely convincing line if Wikipedia were almost 50% semiprotected. In reality, it's more like 0.1%, and this quip has almost no relation to reality.

Yeah, I wonder, who out of 'anyone' does the ability to make 10 edits and 4 days actually exclude or restrict.....
Cas

Lazy, impatient, idiots?

[One]

<snip>

The Wiki's plan can work without one BLP, and it can even work without giving unaccountable users the opportunity to mar BLPs, templates, or even Rootology's talk page.

What vandalism are you speaking of on Root's talk page?

Don't get me wrong, now. I couldn't give a shit if his page is protected, but your argument here is flawed. It was preemptive protection.

I don't believe I was making an argument, so I don't doubt it's flawed. I was making fun of what I call open editing fundamentalists. The Wiki will survive without IPs editing some articles, templates, and even a semi-active admin's talk page.

<snip>

Preemptive article protection might discourage new contributors in high-traffic areas, but any IP address posting on his talk page during JoshuaZ-Rootology drama is unlikely to be a newbie. As a wise woman said, "The WR IP contribs never help any given situation."

If you weren't making an argument, what were you making with that wall of text?

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

[LaraLove]

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

Haha, right. I like how you've become an epic douchebag after getting on the AC.

At least you're amusing.

[A Horse With No Name]

It wasn't the case with the indef semi of mine that Xeno lifted without consulting me (though I was on wikibreak at the time, so it's perhaps not reasonable to expect that he would have).

No, Xeno is just plain rude. You should see him in the admins' cafeteria: pushing his way past people who are standing on line, grabbing food out of trays with his unwashed hands, not paying for his lunch, chasing away people who want to sit at his table. Really scary stuff.

[Moulton]

I dunno about ANYONECANEDIT, but WP is the soap opera that anyone can make a cameo appearance in.

As Hero-Goat Dramas go, there are endless opportunities to play the role of the goat.

The main deficiency is that there are scant venues for singing the tragoidian dithyramb.

[carbuncle]

As Hero-Goat Dramas go, there are endless opportunities to play the role of the goat.

Or the swan, in the case of Zeus/swan dramas. Zeus, of course, being played by the sole founder.

[One]

...fun of open editing fundamentalists. Like I said. Right there above.

If you don't like my walls, you don't have to read them. Oh wait. You don't.

Haha, right. I like how you've become an epic douchebag after getting on the AC.

At least you're amusing.

You asked a question I just answered. I'm sorry for being frustrated with you.

I don't have an issue with you. I'd wish you'd drop the axe.

[A Horse With No Name]

Say, what happened to Rootology? I thought this was supposed to be our opportunity to vivisect him.