Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group 2"

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 43: Line 43:
#'''For''' - As Karek. High-profile pages could be protected easily, and the semiprotection will be very useful on pages that are targets for vandalism. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
#'''For''' - As Karek. High-profile pages could be protected easily, and the semiprotection will be very useful on pages that are targets for vandalism. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
#'''For''' – As a longtime Wikipedia user, I recognise the sense in this. Regarding some of the concerns: move wars would presumably be treated the same as any revert war, and redirects are generally a '''good''' thing, and should only be deleted when unused. I know they might offend your OCD, but as anyone who knows me well will attest, I'm all in favour of [[wikipedia:lazy evaluation|lazy evaluation]]. ;) {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
#'''For''' – As a longtime Wikipedia user, I recognise the sense in this. Regarding some of the concerns: move wars would presumably be treated the same as any revert war, and redirects are generally a '''good''' thing, and should only be deleted when unused. I know they might offend your OCD, but as anyone who knows me well will attest, I'm all in favour of [[wikipedia:lazy evaluation|lazy evaluation]]. ;) {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
#'''For''' - --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


===Against===
===Against===

Revision as of 03:05, 5 January 2009

The "problem"

Due to bad faith use by vandals, the ability to move pages is restricted to sysops. This effectively removes the ability for page moves to be used as a means to harm the wiki. At the same time, it also delegates yet more routine maintenance tasks to Sysops and takes powers away from the community.

The suggestion

The suggestion is to make use of the wiki's inbuilt "Autoconfirmed" group for the purpose of filtering those users who have tools with greater potential to harm the wiki. Autoconfirmed status is assigned to anyone who makes a certain number of edits and has been registered for a certain time period. Wikipedia assigns it after 4 days and 10 edits; on this wiki it has been indicated that a time period of 2 months and 200 edits would be more appropriate.

Autoconfirmed users would have the ability to move pages. It is also possible to protect a page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit them, this would afford frequently vandalised pages some level of protection while still allowing good-faith edits from established users.

Protections

Move protections

High profile pages can still be protected from movement by anyone except for sysops. This will allow a two tiered protection, normal pages can be protected from single use vandal alts, while still allowing autoconfirmed users access, and at the same time high profile pages, and pages important to the wiki's administrative integrity can be protected from movement by all but sysops.

Semi-protection

Would be requested via the current A/P page, the same rules apply and any protections made by Sysops without a request must be listed on the page for future posterity.

Technical Implementation

This policy would be implemented by making the following changes to the configuration file:

Adding: $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['move'] = true;

changing: $wgAutoConfirmAge = 0; to $wgAutoConfirmAge = 3600*24*56

and: $wgAutoConfirmCount = 0; to $wgAutoConfirmCount = 200;

Abuse

Misuse of move privileges is considered vandalism and would be handled through the current vandal escalation system.

In a nutshell

This policy would grant established users the ability to carry out maintenance tasks without giving vandals additional tools. It would also allow semi-protection of high-risk articles without limiting edits only to Sysops.


Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.
  • Voting closes at 22:39 on the 18th of January 2009.

For

  1. For - P0w3r 2 t3h p30pl3!! And less work on A/MR ftw! =) -- Cheese 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. For - Revert wars could be prevented in the same manner as normal revert wars, page protection. I've yet to see an argument to convince me this isn't a good idea.--Karekmaps?! 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. For - Mmh.. vandals can do more than 200 edits with very little effort, so the 'low' threshold isn't a problem in my opinion. Abuse = A/VB. Semi-protection. Looks like a useful and good policy :) --Janus talk 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. For - As Karek. High-profile pages could be protected easily, and the semiprotection will be very useful on pages that are targets for vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. For – As a longtime Wikipedia user, I recognise the sense in this. Regarding some of the concerns: move wars would presumably be treated the same as any revert war, and redirects are generally a good thing, and should only be deleted when unused. I know they might offend your OCD, but as anyone who knows me well will attest, I'm all in favour of lazy evaluation. ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. For - --Toejam 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against - Threshold is too low. And as current A/MR drama reveals, without significant safeguards or protocol this will cause massive revert wars, this policy does not make this provision. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Against - Move isn't very useful without Delete because the resulting redirects would still have to be deleted by a sysop. The amount of work would stay pretty much the same for everyone involved. As far as I can see, most of the "frequently vandalised" pages need to be editable by newbies, making the protection rather useless. I can't really even think of pages that could be called "frequently vandalised". --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Against A few sysops don't even understand all the work that should be done before moving a page and that an active group should be consulted before their pages are touched. I hardly think the average user will. --– Nubis NWO 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Against - As with the last attempt to gain popularity through "empowering the people" version of this, it's pointless. Sysops are hardly taxed by any of the various administrational pages. Too little gain for too much risk. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)