Wikisource talk:Protection requests/Archive 1

Acceptability of unilateral protection after asking first
This is in response to User:AllanHainey wondering if no-one watches this page in page history. I do watch this page, but I cannot always find reliable copies of works posted here from outside sources. In my opinion as an administrator, while we should not protect proofread pages unilaterally without asking here first, someone protecting a proofread page by himself or herself should be okay if no one else has responded for a long time. I also have this experience at Chinese Wikisource with three administrators only, including myself. Unprotection requests may also be made here.--Jusjih 09:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding Jusjih, I don't think it's necessary for an admin to check every protection request against an outside source. That'd become impossible if we got a large number of protection requests. Generally I take the view that as long as the page has already been certified as 75% text quality & it has the appropriate links & categorisations its fine to just go ahead & protect it, my reading of Protection policy seems to confirm that & doesn't imply that admins should do proofreading of every text.
 * I try not to protect pages that I've listed for protection myself because it may seem a bit unilateral & it should be a simple matter for another admin to approve it & carry out the protection. I did protect a few of my own last week just because they'd sat on the requests page with no action for some time. AllanHainey 12:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will keep a closer eye on this in the future. I would not feel comfortable protecting my own work, and I an sorry you were put in that position.  We had some disscussion about the implementation of section protecting, and I think I was holding my breath too long for that.  Hopefully this won't be a problem again, but feel free to give a note on my talk page if you need to.  I agree that we don't need to proofread texts before protecting.  However I would read through it to make sure there are no obvious problems, unless it has been proofread by two seperate people.--BirgitteSB 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that admins should not protect their own work. Maybe we should also have a rule that in order to be protected the text quality box must be completed with information about the origin of the text and edit history. Apwoolrich 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, this page never made it on my watch list. I'll correct that.  Reiterating what others have said, admins shouldn't protect pages they themselves list, unless something like Allan's problem comes up again, where there has been no response for quite some time.  Similar to our deletion policy where if no one says "don't delete it," then we go ahead and nix it, the same goes here: if no one protects it the admin should feel free to do it.


 * The reason I haven't really been checking this is because I, too, have been holding my breath for the ProtectSection to be turned on here, but the developers are overriding the community's desires and not turning it on.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template for protected pages
Shouldn't we prepare a template for protected pages? If we don't, inexperienced users may not know why some pages are propected while others are not?--Jusjih 16:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we edit MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning? That way, when a person clicks on a page that's been protected, a nice little blurb will pop up explaining the situation (that it's protected, why it was protected, etc.).  I'd rather automate the process than have to manually add templates to every page that we protect.  But if you can come up with a template that works with header we can explore using templates; I just think automation would be a much easier method.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree an automatic message would be best, it'd save the hassle of adding & removing templates everytime a page is protected or unprotected. AllanHainey 07:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then we may not need a template for protected pages, though English Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia do use templates for vandalized page.--Jusjih 17:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion continues at Scriptorium.--Jusjih 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Question
There's no way I can edit a protected page short of being an admin, or asking an administrator to edit it 'for me' on the talk page, right? I've just got a fair history of reading a work (typically a speech or something, I have yet to read literature on WS) and thinking "Wow, that arcane reference to "like the Roman Triumvirate" definitely needs to be wikified" but being unable to, since the page is protected. Unlike WP, we don't include wikilinks to Elephant when we say it, but I believe they are often very useful - for example tonight in Speech against the Union, updating it to read A Whig in England appears to be somewhat like Nebuchadnezzar's Image, of different Metals, different Classes, different Principles, and different Designs; yet take them altogether gives the casual reader context for something that may've seemed obvious to an 18th Century Scot, but not to today's web surfer. Anyways, just a request if there is a way, to be allowed to edit pages solely for the purpose of wikifying...though I don't think there is :\ Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 09:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. If you want to edit a protected page, an admin will gladly unprotect it for a short time, and then reprotect it again.  Right now this is the best we have.  However, I'm thinking that we might want to change our method for integrity preservation to use the system of stable versions that WP will use once it's developed.  The method of stable versions I heard was being developed is right up our alley and it would have the added benefit of keeping us from having to protect pages so that things like interwikis and wikilinks can still be added.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)