Forum:Require autoconfirmed for all page moves

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Require autoconfirmed for all page moves
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 December 2010 by Haloolah123.

In case anyone hasnt noticed, for a few days we've been under heavy fire by a very persistent vandal(bot?). None oft he accounts were autoconfirmed. There is really no reason that a new user cannot just use the speedy move tag. By leaving page moves open to everyone we are putting the wiki at huge risk.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

02:00, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support, obviously.

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

02:00, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We should AGF, not every IP or new user wants to vandalise. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:03, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that users are restricted to two page moves every five minutes in mainspace? The vandalbot was hitting userspace, granted, but we tweaked the abuse filter to disallow that sort of thing. So there's no reason to change move permissions to autoconfirmed and up. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Zamorak. HaloTalk 02:22, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Doesn't this fall under the everyone can edit part of the rejected proposals? ʞooɔ 02:27, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, it's just page moves that have been mentioned here. I'm still opposing though.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Real Not Pure (talk) on 18:08, December 14, 2010 (UTC).

Oppose - Per Andorin. We are overreacting to this vandal attack, there's no need to spam the safeguards which would impede user editing. 222 talk 05:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Not everyone is a vandal. Real Mad 18:08, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and request for closure - This falls under the everyone can edit thing, indeed cook, so this could be closed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:14, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Blocking all anonymous users from editing ≠ blocking unconfirmed users from moving pages. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:35, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Just to elaborate on that, the reason I don't think the two can be equated is because editing is the most fundamental aspect of a wiki. At the same time, page moving is rather minor. Therefore, it's rather harsh ban ip editing, but reasonable to block unconfirmed page moving if you think you have a good reason. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:27, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Notice -

But a request, please make this the last tweak for a while... the support team is going to be somewhat short of time and hands over the Holidays. Thanks :)
Sannse

Were this to pass, which I don't see happening, we would still need to hold off before going about requesting the change. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:35, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I Oppose as well. By virtue of being a website that "anyone can edit", vandalism will take place no matter what, and we have plenty of people happy to remove it. That said, I don't think we need to inconvenience unregistered/new users even further. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:27, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The current move limit of 2 pages in five minutes is sufficient to stop any persistent vandalism. --LiquidTalk 14:52, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per liquid. ajr 15:55, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No, it's only been 5 days, I know. But since it's related to blocking IPs from editing a very highly rejected proposal, and has only received opposition here, I'm going to close it. HaloTalk 18:01, December 19, 2010 (UTC)