Wiktionary:Votes/2021-10/Autopatroller-level page protection

Autopatroller-level page protection
Voting on: Creating a new page-protection level, which would allow only auto-patrollers and admins to edit the protected page. See the Beer Parlour discussion for more.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 06:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Svartava2 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussions:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]]  (permalink)

Support

 * 1)  Seems reasonable. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 00:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) . If someone hasn't earned the community's trust, they shouldn't be an autopatroller anyway, and if they lose that trust, they should lose that status. It seems silly to me that I can't edit, say, the French entry at, despite having over 11,000 edits to my credit over 6 years. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  per Whoop whoop pull up and Andrew Sheedy. AG202 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  According to my interpretation of the lists at  and  and the reasons for protection of those pages, we have around 5 pages that would currently warrant this type of protection and the number is unlikely to grow far beyond that in the near future, if ever. This, that and the other (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an argument against the proposal 😅 PUC – 11:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a fair chance that once admins have such a protection level they'd start using it more as well. The lists you posted above don't count the pages which are without protection or semi-protecter but could do better with some more protection. Svartava2 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Following the recent ban by User:-sche I can't even edit, not that I want to at present. DonnanZ (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) . Imetsia (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my comments at the BP, though I think this vote is a bit rushed. PUC – 14:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) . This seems like a good middle ground, and I would advocate that it be applied indefinitely to pages like gay that are frequent vandalism targets. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  as proposer. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 07:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  09:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Kutchkutch (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  - seems sensible, and the counterarguments are very weak. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  --Fytcha (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 10)  --Vahag (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 11)  -- Vininn126 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 12)  Thadh (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 13)  --Rishabhbhat (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 14) Safe enough to try. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . Making WT:Autopatrollers a right is unsafe for us. People who are made autopatrollers can be good editors, that is okay: but still cannot be said that have gained the community’s trust. User:Donnanz, an autopatroller, was (before the ban) eager to edit locked pages for the controversial etyl-cleanup. This is just to illustrate how this proposal would be problematic for us. We only want trusted people to edit protected pages. If this vote passes, I would like to be removed from the autopatroller group, because I see the new protection level as an abuse, and the standard way is to ask an admin to edit on someone’s behalf.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...Isn't the autopatroller right only granted to people who have gained the community's trust? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To be correct, did etyl cleanups on pages that were not locked. AFAICT the only instance he asked for editing s locked page was  which was a talk page and there etyl cleanup wasn't disruptive. This new proposed protection level would probably not be used on every other page or very frequently, and would keep most pages open even for non-APs. This proposal also doesn't mean that all sysop and template editor level protections will be changed to AP-level. So, like we did, we would still have to specifically ban a particular user from a particular disruption in such cases. Svartava2 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was never banned. It never came to that. So that is an inaccurate statement. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not wish to show you in a bad light; I wanted to give the example of Svartava, but having already done that in the BP, I thought of you as a former controversial editor. And by ‘the ban’ I mean the ban on your etyl clean-up. Cheers. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  10:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to oppose this proposal as unnecessary: how often, if ever, would we need to protect a page more than just temporarily (the one page mentioned above was only protected for a month), at a level higher than just the existing "allow only autoconfirmed editors", but not actually much higher (given how easily editors get approved as autopatrollers)? - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I discovered that afterwards (protected for a month). DonnanZ (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this protection level would be useful once implemented and we could give it a try. Similarly, if this proves to be so much useless, it could be removed by any future vote. Also, many of our highly transcluded modules which are template editor level protected could be reduced to this new protection if a non-TE but AP requests to edit that module, but not AUTOC level because as above, AUTOC vandalism isn't that rare, but it's safe to say that 99 percent APs (apart from WF) won't do intentionally disruptive vandalism. Svartava2 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think WF ever becomes an AP these days. MooreDoor (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * : I am not convinced that this is necessary. There appears to be at least two levels of temporary page protection - "Allow only autoconfirmed users", used every day for WOTD, and "Allow only administrators", which appears to be mainly used in desperation to stop edit warring. The ability to revert edits is an all-too-tempting option which sometimes is best avoided by using other tactics. DonnanZ (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The proposer of this vote has himself been a famous editwarrior. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  11:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, to stop edit war between two auto patrollers, an admin level protection could be used even if this vote passes. Secondly, an edit war is always between two parties. Neither of us both is especially known for edit warring. Both of those edit wars shown above were with you, which means that if I'm famous, you should be an equally famous editwarrior. in case you've forgotten both of those were for surface analysis of the terms, and your removal of them was against consensus that's why I reverted. I ultimately gave up tho, and let you do that for your language. I do not see the point of bashing me repeatedly and putting off topic comments on this vote which are irrelevant here, but I had to reply for thwarting your agenda to paint me as an edit warrior. I request you to not start justifying your removal of surface analysis here. Svartava2 (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per above. --  04:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  as it is unneeded complexity. Use admin only protection if a page seems suitable for this kind of protection. In reading the proposals there are exactly 0 pages suggested for this protection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) . In the current state of affairs page protection is in the discretion of the administrators. In the new state of affairs page protection is in the discretion of the administrators but the list of options is one longer. There is no point in having a vote. This could be done without a vote and having a vote will not change policy. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I myself don't think this could be done without a vote, especially, as pointed out, this isn't a trivial change. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 07:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) . -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 08:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Decision

 * : (18-3-2); Phabricator request submitted here. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 06:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would Template_editors who are not Autopatrollers be included in this level of protection? ( and ) Kutchkutch (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, see the original proposal - autopatrollers and admins because in majority of the cases it would be redundant because an editor usually becomes first AP then TE. However, per Special:ListGroupRights, bots would be able to edit such pages . —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 01:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)