This Willy on wheels is starting to get annoying. As far as I know the wikimedia software has an minimum number of edits an user needs to receive permission to move pages. Currently this minimum is set to 0, i.e. any new user can move pages immedeately. (Please correct me if my knowledge of the Wikimedia software is incorrect). This allows page move vandals to start vandalism pretty quickly, and the lack of a page move rollback feature makes reversions tough. I would like to propose an increase of this minimum number of edits needed for page move permission.
My proposal is to increase the minimum number of edist for page move permission to something like 100 edits or so. This does inconvenience new users slightly, but any new user can always request a page move on Wikipedia:Requested moves or on any of the village pumps, so this hsould be not too much of an inconvenience. However, a page move vandal would need 100 edits to start vandalizing, making it much tougher for the vandal. The vandal of course can create 100 edits with a bot, but probably will be spotted and blocked sooner. Creating 100 good edits requires a significant investment of time by the vandal. Hence I would like to start the process of turning this feature on.
The questions are: What limit should we use (50 edits, 100 edits), and also minor details as to when the vote starts and ends. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Min edit count is currently a draft suggestion. I am just trying to get the ball rolling. Any suggestions? -- Chris 73 Talk 15:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
As a point of information, the feature as currently implemented does not restrict page moves by number of edits; when enabled, it prevents page moves by the newest 1% of users by account creation time. — Korath ( Talk) 20:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
For a vandal bot, 100 is too low. I think maybe 250. If we assume that the bot isn't throttling, 100 edits may pass very quickly. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How many edits does it take for such a page move vandal to be noticed on RC patrol whn it's quiet? Mgm| (talk) 16:26, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Other options would be to limit a page move to one every 5 minutes (or similar), and to implement a page move rollback. Both would also be good, but arenot yet implemented, i.e. they need time. As an interim solution I would turn on the limit, i.e. no page moves for the newest 1% of Wikipedia users. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe have a delay before new accounts can move pages? Say, 5 minutes to some random, unpublished number (probably 15-20 minutes) might be just unpredictable enuf to deter vandals? And possibly a similar delay for multiple page moves for any account--I've never had the need to move multiple pages at once. In just a few minutes a page move vandal can create hours of recovery work--I think we need to tackle this challenge seriously. And I have encountered c&p moves regularly before this feature was implemented, so I'm not sure that's a big downside--most of them have been because they don't know it's a bad idea, not because they couldn't. Niteowlneils 18:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why not program the software to log new users' page moves? E.g., if you have less than 200 edits, any page moves you make will show up in the log for others to peruse. That could help catch vandals faster.
We should keep as close to a pure wiki as possible. There are going to be unintended consequences wherever we depart from the concept of letting anyone edit anything. If we say "You have to have x number of edits to move pages," then we are drifting in the direction of a seniority system, and it also limits people's ability to legitimately change to a new user name. We will probably end up with weird situations where you see a pattern of someone editing a page, and then suddenly another user moves it, because they are shifting between accounts. I'm sure there are other disadvantages as well. Rad Racer 01:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think there is general consensus that page-move rollback, and page-move logging, are both desirable. (However, it will be a while before the developers can produce them.) Likewise, most people seem to be agreed that if we turn on the "disallow-newest-1%-of-users" move control, it will just be temporary until we get the features above. I think it's important to keep these two points in mind! The only thing where there does not seem to be agreement is whether we need some additional control, e.g. a rate limits on moves for new users. My suggestion is to defer that discussion until we have rollback and logging, and see if those tools alone are enough, or if we need more. Noel (talk) 13:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After some searching I finally came accross a location for discussing feature requests on meta. I have now subitted the ideas for the feature (along with a bit of expansion from my thinking on the matter while making the request) at m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion#Page move rollback. Thryduulf 10:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But the page move vandal has now started moving a page through three or more names so that a rollback won't work because the original page doesn't redirect to the page that the article is currently located at. Rick K 09:47, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad this page move vandal got caught relatively quickly. His editing the redirect he created, made the cleanup more complicated than it needed to be. We need to do something now! Mgm| (talk) 11:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally in the light of User Wheee! we will need a solution for restricting new page creation too. DJ Clayworth 22:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now that page moves are limited only to accounts which are not in the newest 1%, we can expect to see the more persistent vandals create accounts which can be used at a later date. Roughly how long do we have before such accounts "mature"?
Before these accounts mature, we need a better solution, along the lines of the minimum edit count suggested here. Accordingly, this page is not dead, we have just bought ourselves some time.- gadfium 03:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This Willy on wheels is starting to get annoying. As far as I know the wikimedia software has an minimum number of edits an user needs to receive permission to move pages. Currently this minimum is set to 0, i.e. any new user can move pages immedeately. (Please correct me if my knowledge of the Wikimedia software is incorrect). This allows page move vandals to start vandalism pretty quickly, and the lack of a page move rollback feature makes reversions tough. I would like to propose an increase of this minimum number of edits needed for page move permission.
My proposal is to increase the minimum number of edist for page move permission to something like 100 edits or so. This does inconvenience new users slightly, but any new user can always request a page move on Wikipedia:Requested moves or on any of the village pumps, so this hsould be not too much of an inconvenience. However, a page move vandal would need 100 edits to start vandalizing, making it much tougher for the vandal. The vandal of course can create 100 edits with a bot, but probably will be spotted and blocked sooner. Creating 100 good edits requires a significant investment of time by the vandal. Hence I would like to start the process of turning this feature on.
The questions are: What limit should we use (50 edits, 100 edits), and also minor details as to when the vote starts and ends. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Min edit count is currently a draft suggestion. I am just trying to get the ball rolling. Any suggestions? -- Chris 73 Talk 15:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
As a point of information, the feature as currently implemented does not restrict page moves by number of edits; when enabled, it prevents page moves by the newest 1% of users by account creation time. — Korath ( Talk) 20:43, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
For a vandal bot, 100 is too low. I think maybe 250. If we assume that the bot isn't throttling, 100 edits may pass very quickly. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How many edits does it take for such a page move vandal to be noticed on RC patrol whn it's quiet? Mgm| (talk) 16:26, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Other options would be to limit a page move to one every 5 minutes (or similar), and to implement a page move rollback. Both would also be good, but arenot yet implemented, i.e. they need time. As an interim solution I would turn on the limit, i.e. no page moves for the newest 1% of Wikipedia users. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:48, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe have a delay before new accounts can move pages? Say, 5 minutes to some random, unpublished number (probably 15-20 minutes) might be just unpredictable enuf to deter vandals? And possibly a similar delay for multiple page moves for any account--I've never had the need to move multiple pages at once. In just a few minutes a page move vandal can create hours of recovery work--I think we need to tackle this challenge seriously. And I have encountered c&p moves regularly before this feature was implemented, so I'm not sure that's a big downside--most of them have been because they don't know it's a bad idea, not because they couldn't. Niteowlneils 18:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why not program the software to log new users' page moves? E.g., if you have less than 200 edits, any page moves you make will show up in the log for others to peruse. That could help catch vandals faster.
We should keep as close to a pure wiki as possible. There are going to be unintended consequences wherever we depart from the concept of letting anyone edit anything. If we say "You have to have x number of edits to move pages," then we are drifting in the direction of a seniority system, and it also limits people's ability to legitimately change to a new user name. We will probably end up with weird situations where you see a pattern of someone editing a page, and then suddenly another user moves it, because they are shifting between accounts. I'm sure there are other disadvantages as well. Rad Racer 01:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think there is general consensus that page-move rollback, and page-move logging, are both desirable. (However, it will be a while before the developers can produce them.) Likewise, most people seem to be agreed that if we turn on the "disallow-newest-1%-of-users" move control, it will just be temporary until we get the features above. I think it's important to keep these two points in mind! The only thing where there does not seem to be agreement is whether we need some additional control, e.g. a rate limits on moves for new users. My suggestion is to defer that discussion until we have rollback and logging, and see if those tools alone are enough, or if we need more. Noel (talk) 13:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After some searching I finally came accross a location for discussing feature requests on meta. I have now subitted the ideas for the feature (along with a bit of expansion from my thinking on the matter while making the request) at m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion#Page move rollback. Thryduulf 10:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But the page move vandal has now started moving a page through three or more names so that a rollback won't work because the original page doesn't redirect to the page that the article is currently located at. Rick K 09:47, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad this page move vandal got caught relatively quickly. His editing the redirect he created, made the cleanup more complicated than it needed to be. We need to do something now! Mgm| (talk) 11:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally in the light of User Wheee! we will need a solution for restricting new page creation too. DJ Clayworth 22:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now that page moves are limited only to accounts which are not in the newest 1%, we can expect to see the more persistent vandals create accounts which can be used at a later date. Roughly how long do we have before such accounts "mature"?
Before these accounts mature, we need a better solution, along the lines of the minimum edit count suggested here. Accordingly, this page is not dead, we have just bought ourselves some time.- gadfium 03:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)