User talk:GreenMeansGo/Page protector

First thoughts:

One hour is too short. If the protect is good, there's no need for an admin having to go and extend it to a proper length.
I would strongly prefer all protects be listed on a separate page via bot, rather than relying on manually notification. Kind of how ECPs are logged now.
"Revocation of the protection is non-negotiable." Change to "Protection removed by an administrator must not be reinstated by any Page Protector" as any admin action is open to discussion/negotiation.
"The right is not to be used in cases of routine vandalism, where serial reversion under a WP:3RR exception would easily suffice." I prefer something like I wrote earlier: "They may only semi-protect to stop ongoing obvious vandalism or blatant BLP violations (that is, addition of unsourced negative information). Socking, edit warring, disruptive editing, etc. are off limits."
Probably ditch the "50 successful reports" point at that would encourage newbies hat-collecting. Admins involved in RFPP have a good sense of who can be trusted with this right.
Uninvolved administrator - needs a qualification. Admins who have protected the same articles as the editor are not considered involved.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN, my only issue with your criticism is the one hour thing. We both seemed to support up to 24 on the related discussion, but I have doubts that that would ever, at least initially pass community review, at least until it is proven to work in practice. I could imagine a subsequent discussion happening about extending it, but I'm trying to "bid low". This would of course be very easy either way if we had actual data on what the average response time of RFPP was, but I don't know that that's gather-able, or who to ask in the case that it was. TimothyJosephWood 00:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Either the protect is good or not. If it is, 24 hours is the usual minimum protect time. If it isn't, a couple extra hours of protect before those lazy admins notice and address isn't going to break anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NN But doesn't that at some level undermine the justification for the thing, that it's for RFPP to make a decision? I mean, I'm really just trying to imagine the oppose votes here. TimothyJosephWood 00:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I could easily imagine the eventual creation of something like a "Day protector" for those who have been given the one hour right and have been proven to use it responsibly. TimothyJosephWood 00:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: A lot of these incidents aren't even going to make it to RFPP. Trusted recent change patrollers are going to pick up the vandalism on the bio of the player who screwed up the game winning shot or the actress who put her foot in her mouth and deal with it then and there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this will probably need a fundamental rewrite then, and it still needs input from the user I notified for input on technical implementation outlook. I will revisit in the morning and look to take care of some of that. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably grab some of the admin regulars at RFPP too. This is going to need a lot of support if anything is going to come out of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's basically doomed unless it comes right out of the gate with lots of support from fancily formatted names that people recognize. I'm trying to think of a way to adjust it without losing what little novelty may currently have. The novelty was pretty much the reason for going with 1 hour. To try to be more than another "pass out bits of the bit" proposal. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical feasibility

Some of the proposed features would require new code. For example, there is no separate unprotection/protection permission - and the current implementation of user rights expiries makes me wonder if developers will like a "can issue expiring protections but not lift protections". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

current implementation of user rights expiries Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm not sure I understand what you exactly mean there. TimothyJosephWood 20:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following Phabricator (the forum where developers discuss tech changes), there is a big project going on to create a function that allows user rights to expire after a certain time. Part of the project is a policy that users can only grant user rights with an expiry if they can also revoke the same right. There may be issues with creating an user right that allows one to make time limited protections but not unprotections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...what about a restriction that a user can only unprotected pages they themselves protected? ...or...something... I'm really just trying to work something in to prevent someone's account from being compromised and then unprotecting the entirety of Category:Adolf Hitler before someone realizes it. TimothyJosephWood 20:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limit

I propose, that there would be a limit of 8-10 protections per hour, so that a rogue protector would not go and protect the whole Wikipedia assuming bad faith. Another idea is that a user would have a limit of 8-10 active protections at a time. --Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 20:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]