You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 4, 2021. It is now read-only.
I disagree with this. If a volunteer gets semi or full protection onto a submission because a enthusiastic editor is submitting the page over and over without improvement, the only way for that editor to get improvements made is by the edit protected request. When we do transition into the draft namespace, the request will also be valid. As I see that this has already made it into the code, would the other Developers like to opine on this or should I ask the AFC volunteers for a consensus?
A draft should never be protected, if there is an over-enthusiastic editor submitting the page over and over without improvement, then they should be blocked until they accept that they are doing it wrong.
On Saturday, January 11, 2014, Donald J. Fortier II wrote:
A draft should never be protected, if there is an over-enthusiastic editor
submitting the page over and over without improvement, then they should be
blocked until they accept that they are doing it wrong.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/213#issuecomment-32099769
.
the edit protected ones are mostly added by users copy and pasting the source of another page using that for a template... we can safely remove the templates!
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Cleanup should remove edit protected requests -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Time_correction&diff=next&oldid=589467029 -- shouldn't have to be done manually.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: