Wikipedia:Semi-protection/July 2005 proposal

Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to projectname. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians. If you would like to help, please inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list there.

For more information on WikiProjects, please see WikiProjects and WikiProject best practices.

Title
WikiProject on Semiprotect status

Scope
Many RC patrol members spend a significant amount of time to revert misguided energy of vandals. Articles such as George W. Bush, Abortion, Creationism, etc.. are at a constant state of vandalist attack. Vandals would less likely to vandalise these articles as a set of restrictions (to be established) will inconviniance/prevent them from vandalising as easily. Articles such as George W. Bush can be quite unreliable at times. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Participants

 * --Cool Cat My Talk 03:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * -- novacatz 04:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (relatively new to wikipedia, not sure what to do)

Edit count, logged in users only
The idea is that we require user to log in and have n many edits prior to editing a semi-protected page.

Pro

 * Vandals will need to make n number of edits. Fewer vandals will have the patience.
 * Vandals that vandalise political/controversial pages due to their personal POV. (i.e. people vandalising George W. Bush just because they hate the guy)
 * Certain articles that exist to be vandalise will be reliable.
 * RC patrol will deal with lesser vandalim, or a slower rate of vandalism.

Con

 * Vandals may instead vandalise random pages.
 * May promote a minor level of elitisim although not intended.
 * An entire new policy. One new thing for admins to deal with.

Verification
Below is the email from wiki-pipermail Hi! I've added to MediaWiki a feature which could be an alternative to page protection: the verify feature. I've added to the sysops' bar a 'verify'/'unverify' button: 'verify' sets the current revision as 'verified'. When there is a 'verified' revision, users can still edit the page, but new revisions are not shown until a sysops verifies it again (of course, even new revisions can be accessed though the history, and the verified one, if any, is in bold). 'Unverify', of course, removes the protection. I think this would be a very good alternative to page protection against vandals. I would like to heard what do you think of it. Regards, Salvatore 

Pro

 * Already implemented by devs according to the email, not available in the admin tool bar, yet.
 * Pages will be able to be edited by even the newest editor
 * Article will be reliable

Con

 * A new load to admins.

Pro

 * Pages are semi-protected swiftly on demand

Con

 * Just like, this function is open for abuse.

A voting system
SImilar to VfD users vote to semi protect pages

Pro

 * "Democratic"

Con

 * Likely to be cluttered like VfD
 * Yet a nother vote!

Goals

 * 1) Inconvenience/Discourage/Exterminate! vandals.
 * 2) Make articles such as George W. Bush, Abortion more reliable as these articles get vandalised multiple times a day.

General strategy and discussion forums

 * /General
 * /Strategy

Infoboxes

 * e.g.
 * e.g.



Other templates


VotesforSemiprotect

Categories

 * Category:Semiprotected

Archives

 * #1