Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy/Archive 3

message: Anon page creation is going to be disabled temporarily. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 17:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's only anon creation of new pages. The email says clearly that anons will still be able to edit. -Splashtalk 17:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, I had seen my mistake and corrected it  before you posted here. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 17:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A direct link to the letter: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033880.html xaosflux T/C 01:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  By the way.... 

message: What if we did something like this.
# Track unproven users in some way similar to what's already been discussed.
# When an unproven user makes an edit, set a flag in the DB on that edit, but otherwise treat it normally.
# The next time the page is edited, insert:
:* the usual heading (eg Editing Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy (comment) )
:* a message at the top of the page saying something like "Wikipedia cannot be sure if the previous editor(s) are experienced or not.  You might like to take a moment to review their changes."
:* a diff of the current version and the last edit by a proven editor
:* the usual edit buttons and subject/headline and edit box and everything, exactly the same as usual
Nobody is prevented from doing anything.  Nobody can do anything they couldn't normally do.  Nobody has to do anything more than they do now.  It would just help experienced users do what they can already do, if they want to.
Regards, Ben Aveling 21:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me.  +sj + 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's too close to a content review, which has been continuously shot down by the community. Besides, article validation is supposed to go online soon, which may address some of those problems too. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 07:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where has article validation as a concept been shot down?  People have not agreed on any particular suggested implementation, but this sounds like a very mild and constructive one, without the downsides of other suggestions that would require (rather than suggest) validation.  +sj + 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not what I said. Article validation is going ahead; content review is what has been shot down several times. An interesting example was Alan Dershowitz, where Jimbo just dumped a whole new role to admins by making the page admin-only; see all the protest in his talk page about that. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternate proposal 

message: Ahoerstemeier (aka andy) presents an interesting concern at Talk:Wikipedia#Vandalism. In a nutshell, he is concerned that protecting (or semi-protecting) frequently vandalized pages might cause vandals to spread out and vandalize a wider variety of pages, where their vandalism might not be caught as quickly as it would be on pages that admins are watching closely, such as GWB and Wikipedia. --TantalumTelluride 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it's much less interesting to vandalize pages that aren't currently cool or in the news. +sj + 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point of this policy. Determined vandals have been here for a while, and have been enabled by the ability to hit big articles. If we can stem vandals from their source (if only for a little bit), the world would be a better place, I think. High-profile pages, while more likely to be watched by a greater number of users, are much more likely to be vandalized than lower-profile pages. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea from Talk:Wikipedia 

message: Assume we try this out.  How many pages would have to be semi-protected before we decide it's not working and turn it off?  30? 300?  3000? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be less than 30, more like a dozen. We should be able to see a difference one way or the other and track it over a period of a week or two. Lately, the vandalism to GWB is down slightly, but that may coincide with the probablity that these talk pages are being read by vandals....--MONGO 08:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A good answer to a question I didn't mean to ask.  :-)  What I meant to ask is, if the number of semi-protected pages creeps to 300, is that a problem?  Is 3000?  I guess so long as we can turn it off without causing a big fight, it can't become a problem?  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much is too much? 

message: But it misses a big bit!!! Users that are vandals should not be able to edit pages that are protected like this. I suggest a way of marking vandals as vandals, as well. 
</br>
Also that certaint users that remove vandalism a lot and are not yet admins can still use this.
--Adam1213 Talk + 09:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected pages would be editable by anyone with an account older than 1% of all current accounts. That would essentially mean accounts older than 3-4 days. So yes, any non-admin who has been here for more than a week could edit the pages. IPs could not edit semi protected pages, which would stop most of the vandalism, if not all. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is impossible to discern which users are vandals until they vandalise.  The proposed semi-protection is a much more liberal version of the current protection scheme.  If a page is being vandalised, I would much rather have it open to registered editors with an account older than 1% of all current accounts rather than lock it out completely.  Hall Monitor 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Established vandals are blocked indefinitely. That's a better solution than any kind of protection. -Splashtalk 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indefinite blocks are not always an option, such as the case with AOL users due to collateral damage concerns.  The same applies to school proxies; it generally takes at least 10 to 20 temporary blocks due to severe vandalism from a school IP address before something more permanent is discussed.  Unfortunately, from what I've observed, the bulk of our vandalism originates from either an AOL IP or a school proxy.  Hall Monitor 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured Adam1213 was referring to accounts >1% old that were known to have vandalistic propensities. These are usually killed off as "vandalism only" accounts in fairly short order, or find themselves without an admin to unblock or whatever. I agree that most vandalism originates from IPs, and hope that this version of semiprotect will nobble quite a bit of that on articles where it is a serious problem. (I'm a he, btw.)-Splashtalk 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye, my apologies.  Hall Monitor 19:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  great idea 

message: # Support. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ...of my philosophical question about whether this is an encyclopedia that happens to use a wiki format, or a wiki that enjoys tinkering with encyclopedia topics. Jimbo's post here seems to settle that one.  "Anyway, this is first and foremost an effort to write a high quality encyclopedia, not a wide open wiki" · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the answer to that question will help here, Katefan.  Whether one emphasizes a wiki over an encyclopedia or vice versa, this is something that is just common sense so that a page doesn't get vandalized 30 times a day. --kizzle 17:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what the frightening thing is, kizzle? You are way under the actual amount. In the last 24 hours, GWB been vandalized 49 times and I believe that's actualy low. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the nut 

message: I would encourage you to visit the RC IRC channel #wikipedia-en-vandalism  and spend 15 minutes just observing the activity. As an administrator that spends considerable time each day in RC patrol fighting back the ever-growing hordes of vandals, I can assure you that without some tools to limit the openness of the project to curt vandalism, we will not prevail. The number of vandals increases exponentially as Wikipedia becomes more popular, but the number of admins that chose to spend time on the thankless job of vandal-fighting, is not growing nearly as fast. We need better tools, and we need them fast. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the nail right on the head.  I've been in that channel and it's scary.  There's roughly one new occurrence of vandalism per second, and although anti-vandalism admins will burn out, the sheer horde of vandals (each of whom only contributes a small number of defacings) never gets tired.  --Cyde Weys [u]  [t]  [c] 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The worst part about vandal fighting in RC IRC is that you see articles like GWB, Hitler, etc over and over again, generally dozens of times an hour, sprot would greatly reduce them! xaosflux T/C 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But would it?  My worst case scenario is that just as many vandal edits are still made, but instead of happening at GWB/Hitler/etc they move to the user and talk pages of people making valid contributions of GWB/Hitler/etc.  I don't think that's the most likely outcome, but I think it will happen to some extent.  Regards, Ben Aveling 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that's fairly unlikely, and if it is, then it's better than vandalizing articles. Note that on the sort of contentious articles that we're speaking of, e.g. Hitler, Jesus, George W. Bush, etc., the great contributors to them are not brand spanking new or anonymous users, but WP veterans, generally speaking, who have been around long enough and know what they're doing enough to be willing to work on such pages. Regardless, I don't think it's enough of a deterrent to not implement the idea; it's certainly worth a shot, even in the case that you're right. Blackcap (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that but the vandalism room doesn't catch alot of the vandalism. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I prefer WP:CDVF, myself, for that and other reasons. Blackcap (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to those that oppose this proposal 

message: Currently the average user can't distinguish between this and full protection.  If they complain to an admin, they will say "the page has been protected", which isn't quite true.  So it should clearly distinguish itself in the banner. Stevage 17:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe add a smaller line "Note: this page is still editable by *registered* users."? Jabrwock 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Newly created accounts would be blocked too, though. --TantalumTelluride 00:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner should read "...has been semi-protected..."

message: ...or does it face the same restrictions that protected pages currently do for admins (i.e. they can edit them, but aren't allowed to until it's unprotected)? In other words, on a semi-protected article, can normal editors continue to edit the page or are they expected to discuss all changes on the talk page? (Sorry if this is a dense question, but I didn't see it outlined anywhere). Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that semi-protection only applies to a page that is facing vandalism, not one that is simply controversial. So normal editors should continue to work as normal on the page.Stevage 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as the proposal says, Semi would emphatically never be the solution to an edit war, since it could treat some parties differently to others. There should be a presumption that editing semi-protected pages is fine. There needn't even be the big red message that admins get when they go to edit a protected page. It should be treated with as little ceremony as a move is at present, since it is basically the same level of restriction on established editors. -Splashtalk 03:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., thanks. That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. Blackcap (talk) (vandalfighters, take a look) 03:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a semi-protected article be edited as normal... 

message: What if the account creation rate slows down. Wont the newest editors get locked out of articles, even though they are not really that new anymore? Why can't Wikipedia record account creation date, then we could have 3-4 days instead of "newest 2-3 percent". Just a though for the devs in the future. For now, X% should work very well.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue for later 

message: First off, I may be giving credit to Kizzle's "non-admins might like semi-protection" (paraphrased) statement as I'm not an admin.
Over at the Stanley Williams article today we saw a text-book case of a high-profile article getting vandalised by anons repeatedly.  Now the page has been protected.  That means that I can no longer edit the article, even though I've been editing/reverting vandals there all day.  Bring on semi-protection, it would have solved the problem much nicer than the brick-wall-solid protection status that exists now.  CanadianGuy 04:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was more enunciating that non-admins might like extended semi-protection. --kizzle 05:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Stanley Williams article really is a perfect example of a page which could have and should have been temporarily semi-protected rather than protected.  In cases such as this one, we have two options; block everyone from editing (and protect the "wrong version"), or fight the uphill battle of trying to revert vandalism while struggling to make positive contributions and not have them edit-conflicted or lost in the shuffle of confusion while vandalism is being simultaneously removed.  These are not productive options for building an encyclopedia.  Hall Monitor 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another text-book case:  [[Stanley Williams]] 

message: In a paragraph or so, can you briefly describe what it would take to implement an edit count check in addition to the time limit associated with x% of users?  What is the most significant roadblock for this to be implemented?  In what circumstances could this be implemented? --kizzle 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be really feasible, this would require adding an edit counter on the user table. Counts on revision would be a touch expensive to do all the time. Possible if needed. --Brion 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been talking about it tho' - Tim and Avar were on about a separate table for it at one point. 86.133.53.111 17:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, well lets see how solely using time limits derived from %x of users works out, if for some reason we still get excessive vandalism due to hordes of sleeper accounts even with setting the time limit to 95%, we may want to consider implementation at that time to get this right. --kizzle 07:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a new database only containing editors could be devised. If during an edit, the editor is not in the list a relatively time consuming check could create the count for that entry from scratch. After that, they are in the database, it would be only necessary to update the value and this would be much faster.WolfKeeper 05:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question for developers 

message: Okay, this will be an outside comment, since I'm not active on the English Wikipedia.
At first, I didn't like the idea. I'm a pretty strict conservatist in these matters - if Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, then let it be. Just as with the recent move to block anonymous users from creating new articles, I was oppose to the idea.
But now, I think it might by pretty useful. If all anonymous users and new users will get blocked from editing the article, vandalism rate should drop by... Hell, I don't know how much, but it will drop - that I'm sure off. I don't think I have any further ideas here. If this idea will get approved, I'll be more then happy to promote it on the other Wikimedia projects. Datrio 21:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you support the idea, you might want to help by putting your vote here. --kizzle 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What I like about it is that it would probably even mean less "normal" blocks - G. Gearloose (?!) 03:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My personal $0,02  

message: I think something to this effect should be implemented soon.  The page move delay was a good idea and I think this is, too.  I urge users to consider this as a viable method to keeping the wiki safe.  --King of All the Franks 04:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are supporting then? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  --King of All the Franks 05:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My opinion 

message: Basically this discriminates between registered users and anons. It will probably eliminate some vandalism, but I would like to seek ways to discriminate between vandals and good editors. --Snowdog 13:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be great. What do you propose? -Splashtalk 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a tougher blocking policy? Stop with all this , , etc... Someone vandalises twice, they get blocked for 12 hours. No questions asked. If they keep coming back to vandalise, block for 48 hours. Much tougher than the current policy. Something like that? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that a substantial majority of vandalism is drive-by impulse vandalism, your solution wouldn't fix this problem at all.  It also vastly increases the workload on the RC community, which is one of the reasons this proposal is receiving such heavy support, so that people can go back to building a better encyclopedia rather than spending all their time reverting some kid who puts in "GWB sucks".--kizzle 18:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, this would "only be used on an article that is suffering heavy vandalism of the sort that would currently result in protection." (per above thread). This would mean that drive-by vandalism would not really qualify under this policy. It is supposed to be used as a response and not a proactive restriction. I'm still not convinced this wouldn't just be slapped on the GWB article and would never be removed. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course drive-by vandalism would qualify under this policy.  It is possible for a page to suffer heavy vandalism from a significant amount of drive-by vandalism.  You don't honestly think GWB or Stanley Williams got vandalized by the same 10 people?  Heavy vandalism can, and most of the time is, made up of drive-by vandalism to high profile pages, thus the page gets protected.  As for GWB, if it solves the problem, than sp should still be lifted every once in a while to see if the vandalism continues. It's not perfect, but its the best solution we have, including the status quo and simply blocking drive-by vandals who won't stick around long enough to feel the effect of the block. --kizzle 19:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Occasional vandalisms can be handled by people watching those pages, or watching edit lists. It's when it's obvious that it's a problem keeping up, that this would get applied. For example, one of the pages I monitor gets vandalised by "drive-by"s once or twice a day during the week, so SP isn't really needed. On the weekend though, the number climbs up to 40 vandal edits a day. At that point, SP would be requested (maybe lasting up to 24 hours), just long enough to discourage the vandals who do 3-4 "repeat" vandalisms in a row, and discourage any other vandals until the registered users can clean up the mess of having to repeat the same revert command over and over 20 times. Jabrwock 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a small, yet essential tool that we need to stop these vandals. Much can be said against it, but for those who have spent even five minutes on RC patrol, this will work wonders. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The main thing to keep in mind is that this will only be used on very high profile, well developed pages.  New users can still make edits, just not to the Hitler, Bush etc..  It basically comes down to math: Do we experience more flash vandalism or flash contribution? For low profile pages, the latter far outweighs the former; for high profile pages, it's the opposite.  I believe this will allow Wikipedia to grow at virtually the same rate and free up a great deal of resources from our anti-vandal patrols. Oberiko 14:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2 Eurocents ( 0,024$) 

message: I support this idea. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2 (African) American cents

message: Hi ... my edits here in English Wikipedia are somehow little but i,m active Sysop in Ar_Wikipedia and i have to admit that vandalism from anonymous users and newly users are so bothering and anoying , and mostly unresponsible , they tend to express their fanatic thoughts and to put unneutral viewpoint . offcourse this issue is serious especially in particular issues like religious and political issues , so i totally supports this new policy of semi-protection and i think it is important step to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles in all languages . And as it is just semi-protection , it provides better idea than full protection cause these pages will still editable for trustfull and known users to edit these sensitive subjucts , so this policy make the Wiki more Wiki and could increase the Production in such articles , i have to admit that religous pages are always brone for excessive vandalism and we have to find better way for protection rather than full-protection .
--Unfinishedchaos 18:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add your name to the semi-protection v.02 propsal vote.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: already done --Unfinishedchaos 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support