User talk:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal

Level 4 and 1 seem the same... - Tutmosis 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1 is only open to administrators. Level 4 is open to all signed-in users. ShootJar 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry my mistake I was reading level 4 wrong. - Tutmosis 15:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No blocks in the log" might be a bad idea. Mind you, some users get blocked for 1 second by admins as a bit of good-faith humor that both parties involved think is funny. Maybe blocks longer than a second? SushiGeek 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Again, the effort is appreciated, but proposals taking this general angle will not work. MediaWiki doesn't track edit counts; The editcountitis in and of itself will restrict edit ability; I can go on. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I agree with Avillia; vandalism by socks isn't a big or complex enough problem to need this multi-level remedy which anyway is easy enough for sophisticated vandals to evade. If the "recently created users" parameters for semi-protection need tuning, then tune them, but this multi-level scheme is too bureaucratic ("instruction creep"). Phr (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

Some thoughts. First of all, level 4 is not really usefull, because it takes 10 seconds to create a sock, and blocking an IP-number directly for vandalism is I think better than blocking a series of socks. Level 3 is equivalent to the current semi-protect, just slightly different. Ok, it avoids sleeper socks. Level one is full-protection, no change there. Leaves level 2, which in effect is a imtermediate between semi and full. after you posted it at my RfA, I have been thinking of situations that it would be usefull. Protecting policy pages is the only one that seems like something it can be used for, but I also have my reservations against protecting those. Could you help me out with some good examples to illustrate the need for level 2.

At the technical side, your proposal requires a change in software and the underlying database as far as I have understood. So, it will not be easy implemented and there are a lot of other improvements that I would prefer to see first if I had a say in it....

I personally perfer to look from the editors side to wikipedia, not from the vandals side. So, hHow much is this proposal going to affect the good willing users, just to minimise the vandalism slightly.

For the moment, I do not see the advantage of this proposal relative to the disadvantages, but surprise me because I could have missed some very obvious reasons. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1

I propose to also add high visibility templates like {{afd}}, {{flux}}, {{fact}} etc to that category, similar to how they're already protected now. ~Chris {^t_c^e_@} 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No

Just, no. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Naconkantari 04:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Many admins have been blocked in the past. Many users may have had a 3RR vio in the past, but know the policy now. I suggest that at least this bit be reformed. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

I like the ideas behind your new proposal. Are you happy for people to edit it ;-) The levels of edits are too low - why not make them 250 and 1000? You could make 100 edits in a few minutes. Stephen B Streater 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a related idea. It relates the the fact, which you have also noticed, that most vandals have relatively few edits. So my proposal is to allow any editor to apply a one hour block to any other editor with fewer than 10% of his own edit count. This factor of ten in experience will ensure that inexperienced people cannot abuse their power, but also empower normal editors to prevent repeated vandalism until the vandal gets bored. What do you think? Stephen B Streater 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ingenious idea, but I think it may meet with opposition. Let's get some more opinions. ShootJar 20:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easier for vandals to make a mess

With all the high-speed page move vandals, what happens the next time willy on wheels shows up, moves 500 pages, then blocks every user he can? I think editcounts are not a reliable measure of trustworthiness at all, and enabling privileges based on them is just an encouragement to inflation of counts. Night Gyr 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]