UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Semi-protection

What

This suggestion takes only the 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 High-use, or high-visibility templates
• User pages, particularly the signature pages.
• 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

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.

For

1. For the purpose of stopping vandalism, treated the same as a full protection except it targets primarily vandal-only accounts. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   We need 6 more votes people. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Is it against the rules to ask for votes from interested parties who have not yet voted? =p -- Cheese 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Not unless you ask 20 times, apparently. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Is that 20 times each or would they be added together do you think? -- Cheese 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   20 users. Just go ask.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

   Aye aye, Captain. *salutes and walks over to spam machine* -- Cheese 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2. 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. -- Cheese 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
3. As Cheese. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
4. 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? --Pestolence^(talk) 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. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Sensible policy all round. --  RoosterDragon  23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
6. A good measure to prevent vandal-only accounts from causing damage. --ZsL 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Whatever helps prevent vandalism. --Darth Elsij 15:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
8. While maybe not entirely necessary, it should help curb vandalism while posing little if any restriction on wiki users making good faith edits. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
9. As Cheese. --dgw 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Less Vandalism. Always good, right?--Thadeous Oakley 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Because I hate to see a good policy fail because it doesn't hit the minimum number of votes required. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Indeed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:47 22 February 2009 (BST)
13. meh, why not? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
14. i dont like it but its more good than bad--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
15. mkay. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
16. Oh, just yeah. --Janus ^talk 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
17. Looks good to me. --Desyana 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
18. Makes sense, will help prevent vandalism and there are no real downsides. Sounds good to me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Against

1. 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
2. it's poopy ugh and I'm agreeing with iscariot... shoot me now----Sexualharrison 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)