Problems Means well, but some of the fully protected pages are very high risk templates and other such pages, and the possibility for damage is very great. I do not think it would be a good idea to extend the group of people who can edit them. Much better, to restrict further the use of full protection on articles to make sure it is only for the minimum time necessary. And in general , there is enough confusion already with the number of classes of editors and rights--especially if we do decide to use pending changes. (this is obviously related to that, and I suggest that this be delayed until we decide whether we do want to use it.) DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
No. The community has continued to reject such semi-admin proposals. Also, as some admins can't even edit protected pages according to policy, letting non-admins do it will only cause trouble. There is no real issue here—protected edit requests, if urgent, are done quickly; if they're not, they're still handled fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I support splitting up adminship entirely into a set of flags, but I'm not sure it makes sense to break just this one out. I agree that too many things are fully protected, but we should probably address that problem on its own. Gigs (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Full protection needs to be restricted to the very high risk material that DGG mentions, and that should rightly be restricted to admins. Flagged revisions -- oh, excuse me, sorry, "pending changes" -- is what we ought to be using for material that's "only" high risk, as opposed to very high risk. Use the tools we already have.—S MarshallT/C 17:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't mind splitting adding a "Level 3" protection to flagged revisions that only "super-reviewers" could edit (for the one article out of every 100,000 that might need it), but this doesn't sound especially necessary. I wouldn't mind having this userright around (I can think of a few users who have passed RFA in the past that would have been able to use it), but I would not be OK with it being given out just on request. NW(Talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Currently, pending changes protection does not protect transclusions of a template [1]. I wouldn't suggest giving out a protected edit user right like Halloween candy. However, just as certain non-administrators have been entrusted with the ability to modify edit filters, with no ill effects whatsoever, a protected edit user right could safely be given out to similarly trusted users, even if they lacked the extensive familiarity with blocking and deletion policies and practices necessary to pass RFA. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what the purpose of this proposal is. I see little need for this proposed user right with respect to article content edits, which seems to be what the above comments focus on. But I do see two possible uses for it generally: non-admins who can be trusted to edit high-visibility templates or interface messages (and don't care to go through RfA), and bots such as User:DYKUpdateBot. Anomie⚔ 20:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think that this would mostly be useful outside of mainspace. The ability to edit mainspace pages that have been protected due to a content dispute weighs heavily against realistic acceptance of this proposal, though I would probably apply for this right if it were implemented. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
With the introduction of the Edit Request system (linked from the Edit tab if the user can't edit the page), I don't think this is necessary. It's complexification and risk without sufficient benefit. Rd232talk 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with User:Rd232, although time is often of the essence on important Wikipedia pages. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Strongly oppose There is a present process in place and working very well for making needed edits to anything (article or template) which is at high risk of destructive vandalism, and which is appropriately protected. Just request the needed revision on the talk page, and an administrator will make it happen, if a revision is appropriate. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem, and should be rejected. Edison (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could you give us some specific examples of where this (non-ability of experienced users to edit fully protected pages) has been a problem? Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Only administrators can (directly) assist with the maintenance of the Main page, even though this is characteristically content work. But main page editing is a very thin basis for requesting adminship, as RFAs will generally not succeed unless it is believed that the candidate can correctly use the the blocking and deletion tools (whether they have any intention of being active in this area or not.) Nothing about this proposal is fixed, on a "take or leave it" basis. For instance, it might be decided that very high-risk templates and the MediaWiki namespace should only be editable by administrators, but a new type of protection should be created, that allows editing by admins or users with the protected edit right, primarily for use on the main page, and intermediate-risk templates. Note that pending changes protection is not usable for high-risk templates at all, or the main page (unless the current system of dedicated templates with specific content is abandoned for a page on which all content appears directly), since the current revision of a template is transcluded, irrespective of review status.[2]Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
One problem with the current situation is that the continual upkeep of the main page becomes a drain on the limited amount of time that administrators are willing to donate to the project. It is likely the case that many admins are involved with main page maintenance for the simple reason that only they can do it, and would work on other areas that receive limited administrative attention, such as this topic ban discussion archived without closure, if trusted non-admins could edit the main page. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
At a more wiki-philosophical level, many editors believe that telling users "You can't edit this page right now" is a problem. While vandals have made certain instances of this problem unavoidable, I suggest it is most compatible with Wikipedia's principles to seek to minimize its occurrence. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
This statement is somewhat misleading: "Only administrators can (directly) assist with the maintenance of the Main page, even though this is characteristically content work." The content of the main page (TFA blurb, DYK hooks, POTD blurb, etc) is able to be written and edited by admins and non-admins alike, and in most cases they are. The maintenance of the main page is only able to be done by admins, but this work is not characteristically content work. This proposal seems to be a relatively complex addition to our software that would have little benefit to the project. Jujutaculartalk 13:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Adding my rejection to the others. Solution in pursuit of a problem. SpartazHumbug! 15:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose (As a non-admin) The ability to screw something up is too great, and the rewards too small. There are times when I think that it might be a good idea to revoke autoconfirmed/confrimed status on people who have a history of questionable edits on battleground pages (thus removing them from the problem) but if anything, less people, not more, should be editing anything that find's itself fully protected. Sven ManguardTalk 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as above. And besides, the last thing we need is yet another user tier to further muddy the waters and confuse things. Want the tools? Pass an RFA. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as many of the above points. It's probably an attempt to fix the very poor RfA system but the answer there is to fix RfA, not to introduce further complexity. As as Fetchy states, it's a non-existent problem. Chzz ► 02:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
