Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Woohookitty (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 4 December 2005 (→Proposal: added proposed template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Proposal

Many users have noticed and complained about the overabundance of vandalism in the many high-profile articles, such as George W. Bush. In these highly vandalized articles, for several hours in any given 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 imagery. Many of the edits to these high-profile articles are revert vandalism, from the most obvious blanking to the most subtle {{verror}} entries. Some articles, such as George W. Bush, have had few new contributions of information done; 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 due to the edit wars between the vandals and those reverting their edits. 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 edit count passes a reasonable barrier, say, 10 edits or so. There are different levels of protection proposed:

0. Open

1. Moves Prohibited

2. 10/25 edits required to edit

3. 50/100 edits required to edit

4. Full protection (Editable only by administrators)

• Custom (more later)

(Note that with the exception of numbers 2, 3, and custom, these levels are already in place.)

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.

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.

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 blockip. 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.

Protection will be handled like it is now, on Requests for page protection, 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.

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.

While this may seem to not be in the spirit of a wiki to many 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.

Proposed template to put on semi-protected pages

Discussion at the talk page

Arguments For

• Will greatly help stem the tide of vandalism on high-profile/highly vandalized pages such as George W. Bush 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 slippery slope 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.

• Misplaced Pages proposals