UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group 2

Current Discussion

A few things:

• Shouldn't abuse of the move tools also result in a demotion (as well as the usual warning?)
• Is there any way for a user to be demoted
• Are promotions completely automated-I got the impression they were, but I wasn't too sure.

Other then that, I have no problem with it.

Linkthewindow  Talk  22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Answers:

• It's not a sysop tool, hence they can't be demoted from a position they don't have. If a Sysop abuses it then it is misconduct and would follow the current procedure.
• Short answer: No. If they abused it then they get warned and if they continue abusing it then they get banned.
• Yes.

It could be set up differently (Using a "proper" group and setting up an auto-promotion) to allow for demotions and to have a confirmation process but that is more technically complex and would require an update the wiki software.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this has to be up for discussion for three days before it can be open for voting-its under the "Voting" header now. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already been discussed, this is headed as "Autoconfirmed Group 2" as the previous name was already used by the original that was archived when I wasn't paying attention.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Shouldn't the old discussion be moved over? Linkthewindow  Talk  22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yes.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question-would moves have to be recorded at A/MR (or a similar page,) or not? Linkthewindow  Talk  05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say yes, but I think to do so would counteract the very point of the policy. If it has to be reported (and the Sysops subsequently have to spend time maintaining the page) then it may as well just be left to Sysops IMHO.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes will make it easy to find obvious "move vandals," so I doubt it would be a problem (although we should keep A/MR so non-autoconfirmed users can still request a move.) Linkthewindow  Talk  10:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there is also a move look which we can look through--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

^.--Karek^maps?! 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So instead of keeping track of them on one page you would rather hope that someone will go through the logs to keep an eye out for vandalism? Instead of the Move Request page that can be added to the watch list you find it easier to go through logs? This and other cases like this is one of the reasons why I am strongly against this idea. And going through the logs shows that there were only about 500 moves since May. How is that amount too much work? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to keep track of moves. Most users won't want to log every time they move a page, they may as well just ask a Sysop to do it. I don't see the problem with having to check the move logs; we use recent changes to patrol for vandalism, we don't require users to log every edit they make!--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Votes cast:

For

1. For - Semi-protection could be useful for pages such as the main page that currently can't be edited by anyone except sysops, or for a group page that is repeatedly being vandalised by throwaway accounts. Obviously there's the potential for it to be used in an anti-newbie way, but seeing how normal protections aren't used in an anti-non-sysop way, I wouldn't expect that to happen (especially if the sysops keep the issue in mind.) --Toejam 01:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
2. For - As the fellow above me. As long as getting promoted isn't too much of a pain, then I don't have a problem with it. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
3. For - Anything to quell vandalism will help. The only thing I have a problem with is the 200 edits, that seems like a lot.--Darth Elsij 19:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   It was originally 50 edits, but that's been changed to remove any potential for vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   200 edits isn't THAT much-even if you only update danger reports and post news, you'll be there in two months. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Against

1. Against, due to massive, unforgivable stupidity - What a great idea(!) Put it straight up for voting(!) Don't give it 24 hours or so anyway so that someone could spot any fucking errors or anything. That's right, you want the community to enter into its history a policy WITH A FUCKING BASIC SPELLING MISTAKE IN IT! So now you have to edit the policy, which as it's under voting automatically removes it from voting and means that everyone has to come and put their time into reading it again and voting again. Thanks for wasting everyone's time moron. Also, this is currently a sysop ability, sysop candidacy protocol should apply, three months and 500 good faith edits, no less. Your section concerning misuse is one massive loophole that is open to abuse. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   See the talk page. Short answer, it was up for discussion previously, but it got archived. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   I know it was up for discussion previously, I contributed to the discussion moron. Still, what's your excuse for wasting every fucker's time with a simple English mistake in a policy? I expect dumb shit like this from Hagnat.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   Just to make it clear, I wasn't the person who put this up for voting. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

   This is my policy, please check your facts before going off on your wild rants. I await the miscondibrations. I'm only human and I made a mistake which I apologise for. I am aware of the sysops candidacy requirements (I have been through the page, you know). Something you may not know is that move privalleges were not originally a Sysop power but were made that way due to vandalism, this policy seeks to address that.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Against - Faggotry at its greatest. Sysops have move, we don't need it. If anything, it would create more vandals. Not a lot more, but more. And the protection thing is just stupid. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Against --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Discuss?

Given that there is at least one glaring grammatical error, I think you had better fix it up some before opening voting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:55 24 December 2008 (BST)

"This allows the movement of pages which are should not be moved without significant consensus". There is probably an "are" in there that shouldn't be... I can't quite work what it's meant to be saying anyway... needs some clarifying, IMO -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:58 24 December 2008 (BST)

I also think that the "Abuse" section needs to include a statement along the lines that the autoconfirmed status can be removed due to A/VB misuse, or even continual careless page moving or editing of semi-protected pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:10 24 December 2008 (BST)

I happen to agree (see above.) However, that opens a whole can of beans to do with where such demotions would happen (page-wise,) at what escalation of the A/VB system would it happen (1 day ban, IMO,) and if a demoted user could get their power back. Finally, would 'crats be the only people that can demote, or would regular sysops be able to too? Linkthewindow  Talk  05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why doe regular users need to be able to move pages, anyway? What's the point? As has been said before, it's not like sysops are being overwhelmed with Move reqs, are they? What I see this causing is a lot innocent and well-intentioned fuck ups... People will be moving stuff arounf without and protocol, and it'll get lost... and orhpaned pages coming out your yin-yang. More work for sysops! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WanYao (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

Yeah, and the fact that page moves will leave underused redirects (which are currently scheduled deletions) that need to be deleted by sysops anyway means that it won't decrease the red tape that much. But the ability to protect high profile pages from throw away account vandalism would be a pretty big bonus, IMO -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:01 24 December 2008 (BST)

I see the move tools finding their use with group and user pages, and not mainspace pages. There are a lot of users/groups who may want their pages moved, but cbf-ed requesting one, or don't know how. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If they can't be fucked, it can't be all that important to them. If they don't know how, they can always ask someone. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Jab

• jabs policy with a big stick*

Is this still alive? =/ -- Cheese 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked TG on his talk, let's give it another week. He isn't the most active sysop :). Linkthewindow  Talk  03:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

From UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group

The Science.

SO is this a current feature that can be used, or would it require an upgrade? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I think it is a current feature. =/ I'm not sure though. -- Cheese 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a current feature which would merely require some configuration changes.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, adding:

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

changing: $wgAutoConfirmAge = 0; to $wgAutoConfirmAge = 3600*24*2

and: $wgAutoConfirmCount = 0; to $wgAutoConfirmCount = 50;--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So Kevan would have to set it up? Would it not be prudent to ask if this is something he'd approve of? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a 5 minute job at most.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is semi-protection? --Toejam 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Users who are autoconfirmed can edit it and those who aren't can't. In other words, newly created accounts can't while established users can. -- Cheese 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. BTW: You've just reminded me of the word I was looking for to describe users with autoconfirm in the policy :D.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you two. And presumably semi-protections would be requested on the protections page, in the same way normal protections are?--Toejam 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with some additional discretion allowed in the case of "emergency" protections as per current rules.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure about protections. Moving I can see, but protections could be more trouble than its worth. (the odd user, throwing his weight around, to protect a page he wants preserving). How would this be accountable? Could the privileged be revoked? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, sysops still protect if this is active. Semi-protection means you can limit the editors to established, autoconfirmed users, making them more trouble to vandalise. -- Cheese 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, theory being that few vandals will bother to make 50 good edits for the sake of vandalising one page (Which would likely be reverted in 2 minutes flat, being a high-visibility page). It makes vandalism-sprees all but impossible.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think that accounts registered to make vandal edits are our problem. Look at A/VB and see that most of the names on there are established users in edit wars or being jerks. Also, this could be a backdoor block to new users that want to vote on suggestions and policies. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But would users have to record their protections anywhere? I mean. In pretty much whatever form it takes, I'd get these privileges (14 months, 14,000 ish edits), and it would be useful, but, say like in the current arbies case between marty banks and a member of the dead, would the temptation just be to protect the burb page in question after making the edits you wish? A lot of new users wouldn't know how to overturn such a move, or even what was going on. Would certain pages have this protection in place? (Guides, Skills pages etc?) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged" member of the Dead. >:| --– Nubis ^NWO 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as i understood this thing, the user simply becomes able to move pages after being autoconfirmed, and to edit semi-protected pages. The autoconfirmed user is not able to protect pages so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it, that's still a sysop action. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat is correct. Autoconfirmed users would not be able to protect pages, they would simply be able to edit semi-protected ones. Sysops would still be the ones to protect pages. Semi-protection would be placed on pages where there is a high risk of vandalism but which we still want editable be established users.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Nubis on this one in that the revised policy has to take care in how it deals with new wiki members making good faith edits. What about a clause limiting the kinds of pages that are eligible for protection? --Maverick 06:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea but I don't think we have enough 'crats to sufficiently regulate such a thing and am no particularly partial to giving more users control over group memberships.--Karek^maps?! 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is automatically handled by the software - No 'crat interaction needed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant for the needed demotions, we semi-regularly have gaps in time where 'crats either aren't there or don't keep up with their already small work loads.--Karek^maps?! 21:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which demotions, it's a software feature implemented via a pseudo-group. It wouldn't be counted as a "special right" and misuse would go through the ordinary A/VB channels.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot better about this if part of it were that we were again allowed to protect page moves instead of the default lock on it now.--Karek^maps?! 21:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We can, just go to the "Protect" tab and select "Sysops Only" in the section entitled "Move". For instance, important pages could have "Edit=autoconfirmed" and "move=Sysops Only" which would mean that only autoconfirmed users could edit the page and only Sysops could move the page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, currently that section is grayed out and and duplicates whatever you select for Editing Lock, default is Sysops only and we can't lower it. Might just be a function of where the minimum level for moves is though.--Karek^maps?! 21:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I be talking nonsense, ignore.--Karek^maps?! 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume crats or sysops can unconfirm an autoconfirmed user?? Is that what karek's worried about up there?? Other than that seems fine to me.--xoxo 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

This is open to abuse. It's going to make persistent vandals create accounts and then leave them a week, at the end of that time make 50 minor edits in their user space and go crazy with the button. Yes, it can all be undone, but it's a ball ache to do so. Run it on a case by case basis using the same criteria as sysop candidacy (3 months and 500 edits IIRC). After this much contribution it would be clear if someone's established as a member of the community or not, and then people get given the button. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much effort, if it's gonna be like that you might as well not have it and let the sysops just do it because you won't actually decrease the ammount of red tape as most users will still have to request moves. In fact it'll increase by having a-whole-nother a/pm page.--xoxo 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just have it like vandal de-escalations now. Quick request on a talk page: "Dear Mister Sysop, I have been a good boy this year, I has 543 edits, for Christmas can I has a rocket ship, a puppy and the move button. Yours, Billy Morgan, Aged 6 and 7/8ths." Problem solved. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What if Mister Sysop is strongly against young Billy having access to the move button despite Billy having been a very good boy this year? --xoxo 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember you're talking to someone in the same boat, I can't actually request de-escalation on Cheese's page because he's banned me. We make it (as well as de-escalation) a required duty of sysops, so a request cannot just be ignored. The criteria will be simple, if the majority of the edits were made outside their own userspace, and didn't all result in vandalism rulings then a sysop will have no reasonable grounds for refusal. Refusal will result in escalation in one of the two systems. Incorrect use of the move button can be reported via A/VB, conviction results in that user having the button removed and having to fulfil the criteria again to get it back. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask someone else, if he won't do it at this point I'm gonna say good on him, some people decided to give us a massive hassle over it and screwed it up for everyone else by making our time hell for doing escalated users a favor to prevent mistakes in future cases. Btw, it not being marked on A/VD does not mean the deescalation doesn't happen anyway, you'll just have to wait until your next escalation to get them marked.--Karek^maps?! 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can up the time and number of edits significantly, before the autoconfirm kicks in. After all, most people take a fair while to work out the system we have in place here. I don't think people who have only been here a week need to be able to move pages, and if the odd person does, they can request the promotion from the 'crats if they really can't wait. A month and 500 edits perhaps? A casual vandal is unlikely to put that sort of effort in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:03 13 November 2008 (BST)

The number of vandals who would bother to do that is relatively small and the damage would be limited for several reasons:

1. Blocking the account immediately ends their vandalism spree (No 3pw vandal style multi-account sprees)
2. Major pages such as A/VB could be move-protected, preventing much of the problems which occurred last time.

The point of this system is to reduce red-tape and a complex system such as A/PM would be counter-productive, particularly when only bureaucrats can promote. If Kevan updated to wiki then we could set it up so that sysops can grant move rights but I still feel that's unnecessary. The best solution would be to simply up to threshold as Boxy suggested.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to lock accounts out of being autoconfirmed when they get the required number of edits? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:06 13 November 2008 (BST)

Not in the current implementation, autoconfirmed status is permanent (It's only a pseudo-group, remember). If Kevan updates the wiki then it would be possible to add a new "standard" group and set up an auto-promotion to that group, but it would be far more complex on the technical side and IMHO unnecesary. Using move privalleges in bad faith is vandalism and would be treated accordingly.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good Boxy. I like the semi-protect idea especially (semi-protect many high-traffic pages,) but the move request would be nice too (especially for cutting through red tape when all I want is a simple user/group page move.) I don't like Iscarot's idea for J3D's reasons-an "active user" may be pretty subjective, and we don't need more drama. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, even if this policy fails then I will certainly propose semi-protections as a seperate policy.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

fact is most real vandal sprees -- the malicious ones -- are done by new users, or users with fake accounts. this would make it a pain in the ass for them to vandalise. the abuse potential is minimal: the scenarios outlined sbove are highly implausible, imnsho. and when old users do vandalise, it would still go through A/VB as usual... and bad faith moves would be as easy to fix as bad faith page wipes, etc, no? as for old users in edit wars etc filling up A/VB, well, there's really no getting around that, unfortunately, excepting social engineering... i thinks this is a good idea. --WanYao 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. My experience is that, most vandalism is committed by either new users or by persistent vandals who create hoards of fake accounts to get around blocks. This would completely throttle the rates at which they can create new accounts without months and months of planning, something which vandals are not generally given over to and which would be easily spotted (Let's face it: 20 new accounts making precisely 50 mimnor edits each to only their own userspace is likely to attract at least a cursory ip check).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We can lock move privileges on high profile wiki pages to Sysop only, which is kinda the same thing and does actually prevent the worst abuse having this feature would allow. Other than that it would allow groups to maintain their own sub-pages better.--Karek^maps?! 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not neccessary

Come on. It's not like the current lot of sysops are working day and night, and longevity in no way equals trustworthiness. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem with saving us hassle and cutting red-tape? This isn't really about reducing work for Sysops (I honestly don't mind moving pages around) but removing red-tape for users.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Pasting a template code under a queue heading and inserting a couple of pagenames is red tape now? Sorry Gennie, but the benefits of this are miniscule and the potential for abuse huge. Reverting move-vandalism is extremely tricky; I have very bad memories of a number of vandal sprees involving the move function back before it became a sysop-only tool. I don't recall whether you were part of that decision-making process, but I was and I can tell you that there are very good reasons for why the system is what it is. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I know the issues we had and I also remember the vandal sprees (such as when A/VB was deleted), the change made a lot of sense at the time and it still does. However, at the time the choice was between allowing page moves for everyone or restricting it to Sysops; We did not consider the option of using the autoconfirmed group. I have explained how we would minimize the potential abuse (Move-protecting admin pages, restricting autoconfirmed to users with a good number of edits, etc.) and you haven't addressed those points (You seem to be assuming that it would be a free-for-all). If you have concerns that are not addressed by the current measure then you are welcome to raise them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about two things here: Semi-protecting pages and moving pages. I see no reason for non sysops to be able to move pages since the admin move page list isn't overwhelming and sysops can actually auto-move pages when they need to with no red tape. If you give normal users that ability I foresee tons of unused redirects as pages are moved about. It's also nice to have them post what they request the new page be called so that it can be checked for spelling and special characters. Lots of pages that need to be moved are misnamed not just misfiled.

Semi-protecting pages so that you have to have X amount of edits and time on seems to be the other issue. I am strongly against this for several reasons and I scarcely know where to start. X time on and edits prevents new users from participating.

The first part is what pages would be semi-protected? Are groups going to have to post on an admin request page for this? That's red tape we don't need for such a little benefit. If we set it so all new pages are instantly like that then we are shutting out all new members. We can't apply it to Admin only pages since new users need to be able to reach us. If we put it on certain group pages then how will their new members get enough edits in to earn the right to edit? Will there be a log of all the semi protected pages? Will someone be responsible for making sure that something newbies need to edit isn't on there?

And if a page is actually locked down for an edit war then what dire posts would actually need to get through? That's always bugged me that people bitch about that during lock downs.

If the sysops feel the work is too much then maybe we should look at Cheese's sub sysop group idea again. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection is irrelevant, although this would allow for greater use of that, page moves themselves can be protected and that's really all that would need to be done on pages that are important to the wiki. Specifically we can keep pages like A/VB Sysop Move Only, which I think might address some of Cyberbob's concerns, there would still be the avenue of user to user or user/group subpage vandalism but that's really not that common now anyway and not really that big of a deal as far as things that can get screwed up go.--Karek^maps?! 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Karek has it exactly right. Semi-protection would be useful in a few places but, even if we don't use it, I don't see what the problem with having it is. All admin pages would be Sysop Move Only, which is the area where major damage is possible.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with having it is what it can do and how it can be used. It is also possible to protect a page so that only auto-confirmed accounts can edit them, this would afford frequently vandalised pages some level of protection while still allowing good-faith edits from established users. This is wrong on many levels. No one has shown me any argument that would make this a good idea. If a page is being vandalized so much that it needs to be locked it usually means that there aren't any "good faith edits" being made, but rather 2 or more "vandals" going back and forth on it. If you let someone else make edits in between instead of locking everyone out while you sort it out it makes it more of a mess to figure out what goes and what stays.

If you lock a group page for auto-confirmed only then new group members can't edit. That will go over really well with the groups that have an "add your name here to join" section when new people can't edit it.

Doesn't anyone else find the idea of having to be in the "auto-confirmed" group before you can edit as being horribly elitist? This is barely one step away from saying new users can't be trusted to post because they are new. Let's just shut down new account creation if you are so worried about the vandals. I will never support anything that puts requirements on the number of edits for users to participate.

I seriously can't believe that the real problem this is trying to solve here is "too much work" for sysops to move pages.

I think this is a very bad idea. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly that semi-protection is useful on pages visited by people like Izumi, specifically in that there's little harm to semi-protecting the said pages if it significantly lowers the number of vandal edits on that page while allowing most of the wiki to edit it still instead of allowing none of the wiki the privlage, and even then it need not be permanent just long enough to exasperate said banned user.--Karek^maps?! 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the idea was to block out new users from editing at all, just from non-sysop page moves. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It might not have been the idea, but it is something it can do. Like I said there are 2 issues here, but the policy is trying to make it just one. It is about moving AND protecting.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What you are misunderstanding is the scope of Semi-protection. It would be used in cases where a page is being consistently attacked by vandal-only accounts; such as page could be semi-protected instead of placing a blanket-ban on edits by all users simply because of the abuse of one vandal.

You seem to be under the impression that this would be "forced" onto groups without their approval. That would not be the case anymore than it is with the current protections system; Semi-protection would only be placed on pages where are clear need for doing so is shown and with the approval of the community.

As for the argument of it being "elitist": Wikipedia has a very similar (but more liberal) policy on page-moves and utilises semi-protection in much the same was as I am suggesting, are you suggesting that Wikipedia is highly elitist?

It is trying to solve any sort of problem regarding "too much work" for Sysops, the intention is purely to give established users back abilities which have been taken away because what we are saying currently effectively is that all editors other than Sysops cannot be trusted to move pages.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over the last few months of A/VB the only consistently vandalized pages are the Admin pages. Many of the vandals are established users that don't fall under this grouping. I don't see the need for this. What pages (specific pages) would benefit more from this than from clicking rollback and perma blocking vandal accounts?

Or a better question is what are the other sysops so swamped with that they can't watch any of these so called problem pages or check in on A/VB?

And as this case shows if a group wants a page "moved" they can do it themselves regardless of sysop powers.

And I hardly think we need to make ourselves into "Wikipedia JR." so your comparison doesn't apply. I just don't see the need for this and see more problems than fixes coming from it.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not about us, it's about convenience on the average user's part and, frankly, the less blank and recreates that happen the easier it is for us to administer owned pages because histories remain intact. There's very little bad that can come from this and a fair bit of good.--Karek^maps?! 03:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Famous last words , Karek. Right up there with "What Indians?" - General Custer. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

True but, I'm at the point where I don't think we should be scared of what's the worst that could happen because everything has a potential downside. If it were about fear of vandalism we might as well protect everything.--Karek^maps?! 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

One number with three letters...

...3PWV. 'Nough said. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly: He's gone, we won't be seeing him again. Secondly, his style of vandalism (Creating hoards of sockpuppets) is specifically prevented by this set-up.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. All a vandal has to do is make it to 7 days with 50 reasonable edits. Then after that, vandal spree. Besides, we know 3PWV was actually the Devil. At least I think he admitted it once. But he also mentioned he has an another account on this wiki, hence his "start a new life" thing. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is agreed that we will be using a larger amount of time and edits (2 months and 300 edits perhaps?), what vandal is prepared to make that many edits For each account. Of course he was, he used it as a handle on SW wiki but I doubt that he has another account on this wiki and, to be honest, it would only be 1 account going on a vandal spree, that doesn't cause huge damage.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well shit

I don't know which way to vote. I see good and bad. Quick, people convince me!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Read all the votes, how about a trial period? _■^■ 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)