Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vote proposal

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)

I will support this as an interim measure only, until the developers can develop something better; although I would suggest setting it to 200 or so - 100 is probably too easy to get to.
For the longer term, I think we should limit editors with less than M edits (where M=2000 or something) to not being able to do another move until N minutes after their last move (where N=10 or something). No new user should be doing lots of moves anyway, so the rate-limit on them shouldn't be a problem. I claim that this is a much better anti-page-move-vandalism measure since it both i) is much harder for PMV's to evade, and ii) has less effect on everyone else. Yes, this will take some coding (and an extra field in the per-editor database), so it won't happen quickly, hence my support for the original proposal as an interim measure. Noel (talk) 16:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This delay seems like a good idea, although I'd set it to allow 3 moves, to allow swapping of articles (Jam -> tempJam, Marmalade -> Jam, tempJam -> Marmalde) and then a 30 minute timeout period. Thryduulf 18:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you can do that 3 move thing. When you move Jam->tempJam, you leave a redirect behind, and although you could then move tempJam back, you cannot move Marmalade->Jam without having an admin delete the redirect.
I support the idea of a minimum edit count before being allowed to perform page moves, and of a delay between moves for non-admins, but I have no opinion at this point on what the minimum edit count or delay should be.-gadfium 18:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I thought that too until recently, but apparently if the redirect hasn't been edited since being created it can be overwritten. See Talk:English country house. Thryduulf 18:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The rule, according to the blurb at the top of "Move this page", is that you can move a page over the top of an existing page only if that page is a redirect to the page being moved and hasn't been edited since being created. That's why I said you could move tempJam back, and it allows non-admins to fix the major damage caused by page-move vandals.-gadfium 01:06, 20 Feb 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)

Of course, if there was a throttle catching system, 250 edits may not be necessary. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It seems I was misinformed, it is not a number of edits, but rather a pecentage of new users, i.e. the newest 1% of users (or around 2000 for the english wiki with ~200,000 registered users). In this case, even 1000 edits would not help the vandal. I would still support turning this on, since User:Bignastyfart just moved a bunch of pages to Pelican Shit's -- Chris 73 Talk 09:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RC patrol

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)

I just counted about 100 Willy on Wheels redirect deletions on the deletion log for February 19. That's a lot~ -- Chris 73 Talk 00:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Options

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)

Agree. Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I totally support turning on the existing feature as an interim solution, and working out the details for a feature request for a more permanant solution. In addition to WoW, remember the (allegedly Wik) attack a few months ago that this would have partially blocked (ie wouldn't have block the per-page text replacement, but would have blocked moving Vfd, VP, etc.) Niteowlneils 23:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It later occurred to me that one of the cool things about a percentage-based threshold is that it makes it an unpublished and ever-changing number, so a would-be vandal won't know how many edits/how much time/whatever is needed to game the system. That characteristic seems worth considering as part of any future implementation suggestions. And yes, a page move rollback and a page move log are excellent ideas, even beyond this discussion/usage. Niteowlneils 00:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If we turn on that feature, we should have a firm sunset (maybe a month or so), so it doesn't gell into permanent policy.. As someone who works in DC, I've seen a lot of "interim" security measures (e.g. the closing of Pennsylvania Ave. near the White House) go permanent. Not sure it would work the same way on a wiki, but it might. Rad Racer 13:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the concern, but rather than a calendar-based sunset, I'd rather see it based on implementing something else. Niteowlneils 18:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
According to Brion in #mediawiki, this feature (no page moves for newest 1% of accounts) is now enabled. — Dan | Talk 12:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
HURRAY! No page moves for newest 1% of accounts! -- Chris 73 Talk 13:37, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I just had my first case of a real user who did a cut-n-paste move because they couldn't do a normal move. A definite downside for this temporary solution; everyone might want to keep an eye out for similar "moves". Noel (talk) 21:33, 9 Mar 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)

[edit] Log new users' page moves

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)

That won't solve anything. The primary problem we're running into is vandals who register an account and use a bot to move a hundred pages in the two minutes it takes to notice and block the account. It then takes a good 15-30 minutes to move the pages back and delete the redirects left behind. We need to do something to deal with the problem of vandals being able to move pages faster than admins can move them back. --Carnildo 04:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Best would be a Min Edit count for page moves. However, this is not yet implemented. A No moves for newest 1% of users is implemented and would just have to be turned on. This I think is a usable interim solution until something better is found. Unfortunately, I do not yet have the details about the exact features. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:37, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Which would be easier to notice? An un-throttled bot making 100 edits, or an un-throttled bot creating 2000 new accounts? --Carnildo 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The first new accounts don't show up on recent changes.Geni
Who is able to move 100 pages in two minutes, with the refresh times we've been having around here lately? That must be when the wiki's running at optimum speed.
Very easy set up multiple tabs in firefox with your move ready to go then go from tab to tab hitting to go button. I've used a simular trick to do mass rollbacks in the past.Geni 11:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Well, the page move rollback sounds like the best plan. Where does one put in suggestions for such ideas? Rad Racer 13:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, I still say the min edit count is going to have disadvantages, namely people with new accounts not being able to move a page when they need to. Our participation is as broad as it is because we make it really easy to sign up and have full access right away, with few unnecessary frustrations.
Also, people can find ways to get around these measures. Say someone creates a bot to gradually make unsuspicious minor edits (e.g. use spellchecks to correct a word in each article) and then once they hit the threshold, move a bunch of pages. Or, suppose they create a bot to create a bunch of new accounts and make random edits from all of them - at least one of them will probably make it to the threshold before anyone catches them. Then they can move all the pages they want. If they get blocked, then they can hang up and redial AOL. There's always going to be ways to vandalize. Bottom line is, the heart and soul of a wiki is that you concentrate on making it easy to correct errors instead of making it harder to perpetrate them. We need to find a way to revert all that stuff quicker. Rad Racer 10:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which says to me that what is most needed is to log and be able to roll-back page moves. I would do this for all page moves, not just those made by new users. Thryduulf 11:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If the vandal has to make x productive edits before they start page moves, then WP is better off by x productive edits, after we've tidied up the page moves.-gadfium 00:40, 28 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)

[edit] Page Move Rollback feature request

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)

That page will not be viewed. Please vote for this bug: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1546 for the same thing. You must register an account to do so. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:57, 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. RickK 09:47, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikipedia is fun!

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)

Now we are at two page move vandals a day - and cleaning up after one which costed the vandal maybe a few minutes took me half hour, partially due to the slow reaction of the servers, but also because it is more work to vandalize than to fix. As there seems to be no move rollback in the close future, we HAVE TO to switch on the previous page move limit for new users again. andy 20:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Totally agree. Who would we have to contact to switch this on, and do we need a vote or is common sense enough to justify the turning on of this feature? -- Chris 73 Talk 10:38, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This may not be the greatest tool, but it's the only one we have. We need to turn this on until we get something better. Noel (talk) 13:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I totally disagree, imposing such a limit invites sign-up bots, but more importantly, new, good-faith users wishing to perform a page move will be forced to cut-and-paste. I know that they can ask another user to do it, but remember that these are new users, and will probably see this as the easiest, most viable alternative. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested that the "right" answer is to rate-limit page moves by new users; that way they won't have to cut-and-paste their occasional page move (not that they didn't do cut-and-paste moves before we put this restriction on, sigh). The current block on moves by new users is temporary, as it was the only thing that was already implemented. Noel (talk) 19:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's rare that new-time good-faith users would even attempt to do a page move, or that they would know what kind of page is appropriate to be moved. Typically they need to get to know Wikipedia standards first, which takes time. This measure is completely appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This limit is based on the time the account has been registered, not the edit count, right? Doesn't that mean that a vandal could just register, say 10 accounts (it would only take a couple minutes) and just use those for page move vandalism? I think that this restriction would prompt them to think of that rather than make them give up. In my opinion, the best way to stop vandalism is to make it easier to repair vandlism than to create it. Hopefully that feature comes in soon. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that account creation is very heavily rate-limited -- to the point that creating enough accounts to get a vandal account out of the newest 1% would take weeks to months. --Carnildo 03:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we have to do this now, even if it's just temporary until we get a better solution. When I started here I probably did 100 or more edits before I even thought about moving a page. The number of cut-and-pastes we'll have to undo will be way less than undoing the page move vandals. DJ Clayworth 22:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] restricting new page creation

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)

We've got to be very wary of restricting new user's page creation, as its a fundamental feature of the Wiki. My only suggestion at this point is an ability to rollback all of a user's contributions that are still listed as (top), and then those that become (top) after the first tranche of rollback. This second (and third, etc) phase will be necessary to combat a vandal defeating the rollback by editing their creations. I have no idea if this is possible or not. I don't know how it would cope when a different users who have editing in the mean timel, or if a vandal created a pair (or more) of users to edit each other's creations. Thryduulf 23:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it really that difficult to delete pages? --Carnildo 01:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What next?

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)

3 days. There are currently approximately 210,250 users. In the past 18 days, approximately 13,400 new accounts were created, or an average of 750 a day. --Carnildo 05:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequested_moves_Min_edit_count_6152.html"