This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index Narutopedia Discussion Protect Page Rights
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1501 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

The community has reached the following consensus:
While there is a majority supporting the proposal below, the "protect" right just covers both protection and unprotection of articles and can't be split so that users can protect pages but aren't able to remove the protection. As such, discussion has moved to the creation of a whole group for wiki moderators, which you can find by clicking here :)

This topic is to discuss the proposal for rollback users to have the ability to protect content to deal with edit wars.


So recently we've had a spate of revert warring which continues because User A continually puts the information that is being removed by various users. I propose that those with the rollback power have the ability to protect content when no admins are around so that the vandalism can stop, but rollbackers cannot remove the protection. This would allow for a rollbacker to quickly protect a page until an admin came online to deal with the situation. Please discuss below and leave your support or opposition to this by leaving your signature under the appropriate heading. Thanks! :)


  1. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 14:09, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  2. --Norleon (talk) 14:10, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Shakhmoot Nadeshiko Village Symbol (Talk) 14:15, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  4. --Charmanking2198 (talk) 14:18, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  5. conditioned support --Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 14:21, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Seelentau 愛 14:28, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  7. --White Flash (Contact) 14:31, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  8. -- The Talk Goblin 14:43, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  9. ~IndxcvNovelist (talk | contribs | PR | RLS) 17:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  10. --ROOT 根 (talk) 18:02, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Conditioned support, per Cerez. --Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  12. --TricksterKing (talk) 00:34, July 8, 2013 (UTC)



I agree with this, but only if the situation is a complete mess and needs to be stopped for real. I think I don't need to name an example...Norleon (talk) 14:12, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with this in theory. It would tie in nicely with the 3 revert tule etc. However I don't believe that it should be a right given to all rollback users. As it is currently, there are about 20 persons in that group and as its been said its a right that's doled out to anyone. The need to protect a page should be something that's escalated to a different middle group. Essentially give the rights to a specific number of persons- I doubt more than 5 would be needed- set the conditions of use so that there can be some sort of contingency until an Admin can come/ a discussion is completed for less obvious vandalism.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 14:21, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well I haven't been here for quite some time, but the revert war is still going on. I'm not sure if that ability can be granted, then again if Staff can allow Rollback users to give other users rollback rights they may allow Rollbacks to protect pages.--White Flash (Contact) 14:23, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

@Cerez: Not a bad suggestion there, but unsure if Wikia would allow the creation of a "Moderator" style group.
@White Flash: Rollbackers have had the ability to grant rollback rights for a year or so now I think. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 14:44, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
Wikia easily can and will if the community wants so. But I guess the unprotection right would also come along ~ UltimateSupreme 15:17, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
@UltimateSupreme: That's awesome! But the proposal above would be pointless if the new group came with permissions that aren't wanted as it'd just become another admin group. So maybe sticking with giving rollbackers the protect page right (and removal of rollback status if it's abused) --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 15:42, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, got a little confused there. Imo, a completely new group might be better. ~ UltimateSupreme 15:49, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
If that's what the majority of the community here wants, I'm fine with that. I proposed giving the rollback group the protection power since I wasn't sure if Wikia would allow for a new group on the wiki. :P --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 16:55, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
There was never a need for this when IPs could edit, and without IPs the usefulness of this particular right plummets since a) it will rarely be used, and b) if someone actually wants to cause harm to the wiki - which a registered user has a greater ability to do than an IP - page protection alone is not going to stop them; they can still move pages, upload images, create new pages, and edit the other thousands of articles. What it sounds like you want is another sysop. ~SnapperTo 18:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think another sysop is needed per se, but as I pointed out in my proposal, the user would only be able to protect pages and nothing more, nor even remove the protection they applied. As shown during the edit/revert warring earlier, there was no admin on and it was a battle of a large number of users to keep reverting edits. If the rollbacks had protection powers (considering that a particular user only kept changing two pages), then the rollbacks could just quickly add protection to the page until an admin came online to deal with it. As I proposed, it would be as a stop gap, quick measure until an admin came online to deal with it fully. There are too many sysops as it is and today, nobody was online until hours after the edit warring came into place. The purpose of my proposal would be to ensure that if the three-revert rule was broken, someone could quickly drop in and protect the page for a short time until an admin came on to deal with it all. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 18:08, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
I agree because all the constant edit spamming and persistent vandalism to articles is very annoying and sometimes some people don't will not listen and so somebodys got to keep It under control and protect the page until and admin comes, so I think this Is a really good Idea --ROOT 根 (talk) 18:11, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to separate protection rights from unprotection rights (see Special:ListGroupRights). I also doubt Wikia would create a new user group. Again, if you truly believe that issues are not dealt with promptly enough, you want another sysop. ~SnapperTo 18:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
That page just lists each group's rights, not all the rights available in the MediaWiki software (which isn't very clear either). We can always ask Wikia if they can create a new group for those to be able to protect pages. I don't see much reason in another sysop imo, just need some interim users who can quickly protect pages to stop edit warring until an admin comes along to deal with it fully. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 18:32, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
It seems I'm wrong about user groups. I still don't think it's possible to be able to protect without unprotecting. I've only been able to find a protect right, which does both. ~SnapperTo 18:56, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Looking at things, it seems you are right that it's impossible to separate the rights. Maybe we could reach a consensus on the creation of a Moderators user group containing some users with limited powers (like protecting, blocking etc), assuming that's what the community would want instead of rollbackers getting protection rights. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

This would have been easier if the protect and unprotect rights were split. I think that if we limit the number of rollbacks with the ability to protect and unprotect articles, it should be ok. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, an extra group would need to be created either way to limit the protect right to a small number of people, so why not go the extra mile and just make a whole "Moderators" group who have some limited powers ? Probably the easiest thing to do imo, considering the rights are not split :( --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:28, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
The idea for re-classifying the rollback users as moderators who have more power than the ordinary rollback user would be quite effective. But we have to distinguish these powers to allow any rollback user to know his rule. Perfect —Shakhmoot Nadeshiko Village Symbol (Talk) 19:34, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, if a Moderators group was created, then only a few rollbackers would get the promotion and a list of rules would have to be drafted for the group and the conditions to get the power (as a moderator would have to be responsible and unlikely to abuse their powers). I might just make a new topic for the discussion on a moderator user group if it's planned to go to Wikia and ask them to make this group. --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:36, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
New topic created based on discussion above :) --Speysider Talk Page | My Image Uploads | Tabber Code | Channel 19:43, July 7, 2013 (UTC)