Last modified: 2014-08-26 14:53:26 UTC
There is a consensus to restrict edit for NS_FILE and NS_FILE_TALK on kowikinews. Upload is already restricted to sysop per bug 59823, so this should be trivial to do so.
Change 156235 had a related patch set uploaded by Revi: Set wgNameSpaceProtection on kowikinews https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/156235
That seems strange. . . Can you explain why this is wanted?
Even if you could find some way to justify this change, a proposal by one user and response by only one other user does not a consensus make. usually. (haven't tried google translate yet either) although kowikinews is very small. (~13 active users. ~19 less ~6 bots) Maybe give another week? In the meantime can you provide a translation of the local discussion and answer comment 2?
(In reply to Alex Monk from comment #2) > That seems strange. . . Can you explain why this is wanted? We are currently using AbuseFilter for restricting File and File talk ns editing for sysop to prevent unnessesary edit and possible vandalism, but I thought system-wide limiting would be better. (In reply to jeremyb from comment #3) > Even if you could find some way to justify this change, a proposal by one > user and response by only one other user does not a consensus make. usually. > (haven't tried google translate yet either) > > although kowikinews is very small. > > (~13 active users. ~19 less ~6 bots) > > Maybe give another week? I'm fine with giving one more week (or two, if you want.)
I'd also like to have a steward weigh in on this. I don't know anything about the vandalism you're seeing and maybe a case could be made for File. However, I'm having trouble imagining any way to justify File_talk. If you have a disruptive user then block them. If you have a group of meatpuppets targeting certain subjects then protect those subjects. Wholesale /Full/ protection (not semi) of an entire Talk NS is unreasonable. Where would {{editrequest}}s go?
(In reply to jeremyb from comment #5) > I'd also like to have a steward weigh in on this. > > I don't know anything about the vandalism you're seeing and maybe a case > could be made for File. However, I'm having trouble imagining any way to > justify File_talk. > > If you have a disruptive user then block them. If you have a group of > meatpuppets targeting certain subjects then protect those subjects. > Wholesale /Full/ protection (not semi) of an entire Talk NS is unreasonable. > > Where would {{editrequest}}s go? Only image on kowikinews is [[n:ko:Wiki.png]] and they would request {{editrequest}} to AN.
I think that differing from a global default position of what a user can expect to be able to do, so is not ideal, and in looking at https://ko.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=%ED%8A%B9%EC%88%98:%EA%B8%B0%EB%A1%9D/delete&uselang=en I don't see evidence of deletions in 파일토론 namespace, and the last in 파일 namespace in February so one in 50 deletions. I think that there is overthinking in this scenario, in a community that is very small. I would suggest that this be a WONTFIX.
Request withdrawn, per comment 7.
This filter https://ko.wikinews.org/wiki/%ED%8A%B9%EC%88%98:%ED%8E%B8%EC%A7%91%ED%95%84%ED%84%B0/4 exists since February to prevent edits by non-sysops in these NSes. It was only hit once so far, as a test. I think this proves its unnecessity.
Change 156235 abandoned by Revi: Set wgNameSpaceProtection on kowikinews https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/156235
