Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:04:55 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 13942 - Allow autoconfirmed users to semi-protect
Allow autoconfirmed users to semi-protect
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Page protection (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-05-03 22:54 UTC by MZMcBride
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:04 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description MZMcBride 2008-05-03 22:54:32 UTC
It would be nice if it were possible to allow autoconfirmed users to semi-protect pages. I believe this would involve splitting the current 'protect' right into 'semi-protect' and 'full-protect'. Autoconfirmed users would then be given the 'semi-protect' right if desired, allowing them to block anonymous contributions, but not block all non-admins.
Comment 1 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-03 23:03:25 UTC
I reeeally don't see the point in this
Comment 2 Daniel Friesen 2008-05-04 01:29:51 UTC
Agreed, autoconfirmed users are not administrators, they should not have any control over the protection of pages.

This would just breed a brand new form of Vandalism and hostility. Users creating autoconfirmed accounts, and then running around a wiki autoprotecting pages so that anon users are not free to edit the site. Completely contrary to the point of open editing. Not to mention a user could vandalize an article, then semi-protect it so that random people who notice the vandalism can't revert it and need someone with an aged account to do it for them.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links