Wikipedia:Semi-protection/July 2005 proposal
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to projectname. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.
For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProjects and Wikipedia:WikiProject best practices.
Title
[edit]WikiProject on Semiprotect status
Scope
[edit]Many RC patrol members spend a significant amount of time to revert misguided energy of vandals. Articles such as George W. Bush, Abortion, Creationism, etc.. are at a constant state of vandalist attack. Vandals would less likely to vandalise these articles as a set of restrictions (to be established) will inconviniance/prevent them from vandalising as easily. Articles such as George W. Bush can be quite unreliable at times. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Participants
[edit]- --Cool Cat My Talk 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- -- novacatz 04:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (relatively new to wikipedia, not sure what to do)
Structure
[edit]Estabslishing restrictions. Proposed restrictions
[edit]Edit count, logged in users only
[edit]The idea is that we require user to log in and have n many edits prior to editing a semi-protected page.
Pro
[edit]- Vandals will need to make n number of edits. Fewer vandals will have the patience.
- Vandals that vandalise political/controversial pages due to their personal POV. (i.e. people vandalising George W. Bush just because they hate the guy)
- Certain articles that exist to be vandalise will be reliable.
- RC patrol will deal with lesser vandalim, or a slower rate of vandalism.
Con
[edit]- Vandals may instead vandalise random pages.
- May promote a minor level of elitisim although not intended.
- An entire new policy. One new thing for admins to deal with.
Verification
[edit]Below is the email from wiki-pipermail
Hi! I've added to MediaWiki a feature which could be an alternative to page protection: the verify feature. I've added to the sysops' bar a 'verify'/'unverify' button: 'verify' sets the current revision as 'verified'. When there is a 'verified' revision, users can still edit the page, but new revisions are not shown until a sysops verifies it again (of course, even new revisions can be accessed though the history, and the verified one, if any, is in bold). 'Unverify', of course, removes the protection. I think this would be a very good alternative to page protection against vandals. I would like to heard what do you think of it. Regards, Salvatore
Pro
[edit]- Already implemented by devs according to the email, not available in the admin tool bar, yet.
- Pages will be able to be edited by even the newest editor
- Article will be reliable
Con
[edit]- A new load to admins.
How should a pages semiprotected status be determined?
[edit]Admins will power, identical to how it works on {{protected}}
[edit]Pro
[edit]- Pages are semi-protected swiftly on demand
Con
[edit]- Just like {{protected}}, this function is open for abuse.
A voting system
[edit]SImilar to VfD users vote to semi protect pages
Pro
[edit]- "Democratic"
Con
[edit]- Likely to be cluttered like VfD
- Yet a nother vote!
Goals
[edit]- Inconvenience/Discourage/Exterminate! vandals.
- Make articles such as George W. Bush, Abortion more reliable as these articles get vandalised multiple times a day.
Projects
[edit]Tasks
[edit]- ?
General strategy and discussion forums
[edit]Other subpages
[edit]Templates
[edit]Infoboxes
[edit]- {{subst:template}}
- e.g.{{Infobox projectname}}
- {{Semiprotect}}
Other templates
[edit]- {{template}}