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.
Version: wmf-deployment
Severity: normal
URL: https://ko.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%89%B4%EC%8A%A4:%EC%82%AC%EB%9E%91%EB%B0%A9&oldid=17188#.ED.8C.8C.EC.9D.BC_.EC.9D.B4.EB.A6.84.EA.B3.B5.EA.B0.84_.ED.8E.B8.EC.A7.91_.EC.A0.9C.ED.95.9C
gerritadmin wrote:
Change 156235 had a related patch set uploaded by Revi:
Set wgNameSpaceProtection on kowikinews
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.
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.
gerritadmin wrote:
Change 156235 abandoned by Revi:
Set wgNameSpaceProtection on kowikinews