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)
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)
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)

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)