View source for UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Semi-protection

==What==
This suggestion takes only the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial|semi-protection]] part of the policy. This policy would make use of the wiki's inbuilt "Autoconfirmed" group for the purpose of semi-protection of pages, preventing users who haven't been autoconfirmed yet from editing the page. As with full protection, pages can be semi-protected by sysops only. Users who are not autoconfirmed will not be able to edit those pages, but will be able to edit any pages not protected. Autoconfirmed users will be able to edit semi-protected pages normally.

Users will be autoconfirmed after 1 week and 25 edits by the wiki software. It cannot be removed.

==Purpose==
This policy would allow pages that normally wouldn't be locked to be semi-protected, normally on pages that do not need to edited by new users but are at risk for vandalism. Semi-protection would prevent vandal-only accounts from vandalizing certain pages, but unlike a full protection it won't restrict other users.

Some examples of pages that could be semi-protected:
*[[Template:Wiki News]]
*Other [[Templates|High-use, or high-visibility templates]]
*[[User|User pages]], particularly the signature pages.
*[[Group|Group pages]]

==Guideline==
Semi-protections will work much the same way as full protections. Users may request a page to be semi protected at [[A/PT]] which will then be reviewed by a sysop and action taken accordingly. If deemed necessary, sysops may semi-protect pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism from vandal only accounts (not autoconfirmed), otherwise a full protection may be needed.

Typically, unless there is an imminent threat of vandalism, community pages, talk pages or any page normally edited by new users should not be semi-protected.

==Voting Section==
{{PolicyVotingRules}}

===For===
#For the purpose of stopping vandalism, treated the same as a full protection except it targets primarily vandal-only accounts. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
#:We need 6 more votes people. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 20:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#::Is it against the rules to ask for votes from interested parties who have not yet voted? =p -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#:::Not unless you ask 20 times, apparently. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#::::Is that 20 times each or would they be added together do you think? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#:::::20 users. Just go ask.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#::::::Aye aye, Captain. *salutes and walks over to spam machine* -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#I was very much in favour of the full fat version, and this one would work just as well. If not better due to there being no move abilities. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
#As Cheese. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
#Works for me. Would this need a new admin page to itself (e.g., A/SPT), or will this be used seldom enough that A/PT will be sufficient? --{{User:Pestolence/Sig}} 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
#:There would be a rush of pages to be semi-protected, but after that it'll go back down. No need for another page, since A/PT isn't that busy enough to warrant it. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
#Sensible policy all round. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
#A good measure to prevent vandal-only accounts from causing damage.  --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
#Whatever helps prevent vandalism. --[[User:Darth Elsij|Darth Elsij]] 15:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
#While maybe not entirely necessary, it should help curb vandalism while posing little if any restriction on wiki users making good faith edits. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
#As Cheese. --{{User:Jasonjason/sig}} 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
#Less Vandalism. Always good, right?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
#Because I hate to see a good policy fail because it doesn't hit the minimum number of votes required. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
#Indeed <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:47 22 February 2009 (BST)</small>
#meh, why not? --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[Special:Listadmins|[mod]]]</sup> 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
#i dont like it but its more good than bad--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
# mkay. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
#Oh, just yeah. --{{User:Janus Abernathy/Sig}} 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
#Looks good to me. --[[User:Desyana|Desyana]] 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

===Against===
#Policy is incomplete and ambiguous. Define a high visibility template. Is there really that much work for sysops on the Requested Edits section of Protections that this is worthwhile? This doesn't simplify things, it complicates them with yet another grey area. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
# it's poopy ugh and I'm agreeing with iscariot... shoot me now----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)