| Revision as of 07:26, 4 December 2005 editWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,225 edits →Proposal: added proposed template← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:25, 4 December 2005 edit undoSplash (talk | contribs)33,425 edits clarify anon stuffNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{proposal}} | {{proposal}} | ||
| <table style="border-style:solid;border-width:2px;border-color:black" align=center><tr><td> | |||
| '''Semi-protection''' of a page prevents the newest ''X''% of registered users and all unregistered users from editing that page. | |||
| Semi-protection will only be applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem. It is not an appropriate solution to editorial disputes of any kind since it may restrict some editors and not others. Administrators will thus apply semiprotection in the same manner as current protection against vandalism is applied — either on their own initiative or following an alert on an article's talk page, ], ] or some other relevant page. | |||
| ==Proposal== | |||
| ⚫ | Many users have noticed and complained about the |
||
| Requests to lift semi-protection should generally be unnecessary in the same way that unprotection against simple vandalism at present is generally swiftly seen to by either the protecting admin or another. Generally, a simple note to the talk page or ] should be sufficient, but ] can be used if necessary. | |||
| ⚫ | The idea behind semi-protection is very simple. It works like regular ] does now, except non-admins may edit a page, provided their |
||
| Articles that are semi-protected will be indicated with {{tl|sprotected}} and listed at ] in the same way as protections are at present. | |||
| ⚫ | :0. Open | ||
| </td></tr></table> | |||
| ⚫ | :1. Moves Prohibited | ||
| :2. 10/25 edits required to edit | |||
| :3. 50/100 edits required to edit | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| * Custom (more later) | |||
| Suggested template (note the links): | |||
| (Note that with the exception of numbers 2, 3, and custom, these levels are already in place.) | |||
| ⚫ | {| class="messagebox" id="sprotected" | ||
| The barrier is still low enough that legitimate users may change a typo or move something around. If the vandalism becomes too severe, or the article needs to be majorly restructured, the protection level may move up to level 4, wherein only administrators can change the article. This is good for pages like RfA and other Misplaced Pages namespaces where new user voting is discouraged, and vandalism is high. | |||
| ⚫ | | valign="center" | ] | ||
| ⚫ | |'''''To ], this page is temporarily ] from being edited by ] users and users with very new accounts.''' Please discuss changes on the ] or ]] | ||
| ⚫ | |} | ||
| Note that with full protection at present, anonymous editors are prevented from editing the article in the same way as are all non-admins. This proposal does not restrict unregistered editors more than they already are in the case of protection. This is ''not'' a proposal to prohibit anonymous editing. | |||
| 10 edits is enough to show dedication to the project, and would weed out many vandals before they get to actually deface the article. The vast majority of vandals have their first edit as vandalism. Very few vandals will be determined enough to make good edits to other articles ten times before attempting to vandalize a high-profile page. | |||
| ==Rationale== | |||
| In case these numbers do not accurately reflect the vandalism level, the number can be raised or lowered, much like the custom time feature in ]. It has been suggested that users might have to spend a minimum amount of time on the project before being allowed to edit some pages, as a way of discouraging vandalbot creation. This could be in addition to, or in place of, the edit count (to avoid editcountitis), and would be a bigger (or smaller) incremental step. | |||
| ⚫ | Many users have noticed and complained about the level of vandalism in high-profile articles, such as ]. In these frequently vandalized articles, for several hours a day, the article displays a vandalized version for the reader and editor alike. Instead of the text and images one would expect from a reputable encyclopedia, the reader discovers vulgarities and either incorrect or deliberately distasteful writing. Many of the edits to these high-profile articles are reversions of vandalism, from the most obvious blanking to the most subtle {{tl|verror}} entries. Some articles, such as George W. Bush, receive few good edits; instead, they have turned into battlegrounds in which virtually every edit is either one by a vandal or one reverting vandalism. In these articles, so much time is wasted that nothing substantive can be done to improve the material or quality of information in the article. This situation tarnishes the reputation of Misplaced Pages and hampers the efforts of reputable editors. In short, we need a solution to this problem. That solution is semi-protection. | ||
| ⚫ | The idea behind semi-protection is very simple. It works like regular ] does now, except non-admins may edit a page, provided their account is not amongst the very newest, much like with moving a page. There is one additional level of protection proposed: | ||
| Protection will be handled like it is now, on ], except admins who are on the fence about protecting a page will be given a wider arsenal of tools from which to use. It will no longer be a difficult decision, and will keep problems from occurring as a result of perceived admin bias. | |||
| ⚫ | :0. Open | ||
| ⚫ | It has also been suggested that the main page be endowed with semi-protection, so that non-admins may have a greater hand in shaping the content, while eliminating vandalism. Whatever the decision regarding this issue, it is clear that it should be used on relatively few pages, so as to keep the spirit of the wiki open. Only if further action is required will pages be semi-protected. | ||
| ⚫ | :1. Moves Prohibited | ||
| :'''2. Editable only by registered users not in the newest ''X''% of accounts''' | |||
| ⚫ | :3. Full protection (Editable only by administrators) | ||
| The barrier should be low enough that editors who wish to contribute constructively need only wait a short time (on en.wikipedia, the newest 1% of accounts last about 4 days) to be fully-active. In the meantime, there should be plenty of fully-open articles for them to edit. | |||
| ⚫ | While this may seem to not be in the spirit of a wiki to |
||
| ⚫ | It has also been suggested that the main page be endowed with semi-protection, so that non-admins may have a greater hand in shaping the content, while eliminating most vandalism. Whatever the decision regarding this issue, it is clear that it should be used on relatively few pages, so as to keep the spirit of the wiki open. Only if further action is required will pages be semi-protected. | ||
| ⚫ | Please note that this will not be the norm on all pages. We still want to keep the spirit of the wiki open and free, and implementing this will be a great tool in the war on vandalism, rather than a tool in the war on new users. |
||
| ⚫ | While this may seem to not be in the spirit of a wiki to some editors, please be assured that it is, in fact; the vast majority of pages will still be open and openly editable. A new editor will simply go onto another page, and will not be deterred; they can come back after they have made a few good edits. A decision was made along these lines not too long ago, regarding the idea of protecting the main page. Under this plan, templates and other protected items can be protected under #3, so that non-admins may be able to edit templates as well, furthering the spirit of the wiki. | ||
| ===Proposed template to put on semi-protected pages=== | |||
| ⚫ | {| class="messagebox" id="sprotected" | ||
| ⚫ | Please note that this will not be the norm on all pages. We still want to keep the spirit of the wiki open and free, and implementing this will be a great tool in the war on vandalism, rather than a tool in the war on new users. | ||
| ⚫ | | valign="center" | ] | ||
| ⚫ | |'''''To ], this page is temporarily ] from being edited by ] users and users with very new accounts.''' Please discuss changes on the ] or ]] | ||
| ⚫ | |} | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| ''Discussion at the ''']''''' | ''Discussion at the '''].''''' | ||
| ==Arguments For== | |||
| *Will '''greatly''' help stem the tide of vandalism on high-profile/highly vandalized pages such as ] and others. | |||
| *Can be temporary or longer-term (but debates about how long-term protection should be handled are still happening) | |||
| *A good intermediate step between open/no moves (vulnerable) and full protection (un-wiki) | |||
| *Would allow experienced users (non-admins) who meet a certain threshold to still edit high visibility articles, which full protection does not offer. | |||
| ==Arguments Against== | |||
| *It might turn into a ] with "protection creep"; pages that still experience vandalism even after a level of semi-protection is added might move up and up in levels of protection. | |||
| *Users who choose to game the edit-minimum will add useless edits at best, and vandal edits that they otherwise wouldn't at worst. | |||
| ==Comments== | |||
| *We won't know what will happen until we try it out, and thus it's too early to make specific policies. | |||
Revision as of 21:25, 4 December 2005
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
|
Semi-protection of a page prevents the newest X% of registered users and all unregistered users from editing that page. Semi-protection will only be applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem. It is not an appropriate solution to editorial disputes of any kind since it may restrict some editors and not others. Administrators will thus apply semiprotection in the same manner as current protection against vandalism is applied — either on their own initiative or following an alert on an article's talk page, WP:RFPP, WP:AN/I or some other relevant page. Requests to lift semi-protection should generally be unnecessary in the same way that unprotection against simple vandalism at present is generally swiftly seen to by either the protecting admin or another. Generally, a simple note to the talk page or WP:AN/I should be sufficient, but WP:RFPP can be used if necessary. Articles that are semi-protected will be indicated with {{sprotected}} and listed at WP:PP in the same way as protections are at present. |
Suggested template (note the links):
| File:Lock-icon.jpg | To deal with vandalism, this page is temporarily protected from being edited by unregistered users and users with very new accounts. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. |
Note that with full protection at present, anonymous editors are prevented from editing the article in the same way as are all non-admins. This proposal does not restrict unregistered editors more than they already are in the case of protection. This is not a proposal to prohibit anonymous editing.
Rationale
Many users have noticed and complained about the level of vandalism in high-profile articles, such as George W. Bush. In these frequently vandalized articles, for several hours a day, the article displays a vandalized version for the reader and editor alike. Instead of the text and images one would expect from a reputable encyclopedia, the reader discovers vulgarities and either incorrect or deliberately distasteful writing. Many of the edits to these high-profile articles are reversions of vandalism, from the most obvious blanking to the most subtle {{verror}} entries. Some articles, such as George W. Bush, receive few good edits; instead, they have turned into battlegrounds in which virtually every edit is either one by a vandal or one reverting vandalism. In these articles, so much time is wasted that nothing substantive can be done to improve the material or quality of information in the article. This situation tarnishes the reputation of Misplaced Pages and hampers the efforts of reputable editors. In short, we need a solution to this problem. That solution is semi-protection.
The idea behind semi-protection is very simple. It works like regular protection does now, except non-admins may edit a page, provided their account is not amongst the very newest, much like with moving a page. There is one additional level of protection proposed:
- 0. Open
- 1. Moves Prohibited
- 2. Editable only by registered users not in the newest X% of accounts
- 3. Full protection (Editable only by administrators)
The barrier should be low enough that editors who wish to contribute constructively need only wait a short time (on en.wikipedia, the newest 1% of accounts last about 4 days) to be fully-active. In the meantime, there should be plenty of fully-open articles for them to edit.
It has also been suggested that the main page be endowed with semi-protection, so that non-admins may have a greater hand in shaping the content, while eliminating most vandalism. Whatever the decision regarding this issue, it is clear that it should be used on relatively few pages, so as to keep the spirit of the wiki open. Only if further action is required will pages be semi-protected.
While this may seem to not be in the spirit of a wiki to some editors, please be assured that it is, in fact; the vast majority of pages will still be open and openly editable. A new editor will simply go onto another page, and will not be deterred; they can come back after they have made a few good edits. A decision was made along these lines not too long ago, regarding the idea of protecting the main page. Under this plan, templates and other protected items can be protected under #3, so that non-admins may be able to edit templates as well, furthering the spirit of the wiki.
Please note that this will not be the norm on all pages. We still want to keep the spirit of the wiki open and free, and implementing this will be a great tool in the war on vandalism, rather than a tool in the war on new users.
Discussion at the talk page.
Category: