User:Funcrunch/Protect userspace RfC draft

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a draft, not a published RfC. The published RfC is now available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Protect_user_pages_by_default. Please leave comments there, not here. Funcrunch (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Protect user pages by default

  • Please read this entire proposal before adding comments to the #Options for comment or #Discussion sections. Your questions or objections may already be addressed.
  • Please remain civil, constructive, and on-topic.
  • Per WP:CANVASS guidelines, users who commented on this proposal when it was in idea or draft form will be notified of this RfC. The RfC will also be posted on relevant noticeboards.

Introduction

On Wikipedia, editors' user pages are frequently used to display limited autobiographical and personal information. These optional pages are not encyclopedia articles. Once created, links to a user's page are readily available in the page history of every page they have edited. This makes it easy for other editors to readily access a user's talk page for discussion, and to thank them by awarding barnstars and the like.

Unfortunately, some editors take advantage of this easy access to vandalize other editors' user pages through blanking, impersonation, defamation, personal attacks, and other disruptive tactics. A victim of such harassment may request semi-protection of their user space, but where and how to do so is not immediately obvious, especially for new editors. Additionally, this request is made in reaction to vandalism and thus does not prevent vandalism from happening in the first place.

The idea to protect user space by default, rather than requiring editors to request this protection, was originally proposed during the June 2016 Inspire Campaign, which solicited ideas to combat on-wiki harassment. The idea tied for fifth place on the leaderboard, with 28 endorsements. This proposal presents options for default semi-protection or extended confirmed protection of the user page.

Current policy

Relevant excerpts from current policies are below.

From Wikipedia:Protection policy:

  • On user pages: "User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in userspace should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected."

From Wikipedia:User pages:

  • On protection of user pages: "As with article pages, user pages are occasionally the targets of vandalism, or, more rarely, edit wars. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing."
  • On editing other users' pages: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask."

Proposal

Protect the user page by default from editing by anonymous and new users. Options for protection presented in this RfC are:

Extended confirmed status is a relatively new access level, and its application is currently the subject of another RfC. It is proposed here as an option for user pages because the low threshhold for autoconfirmed status may not be sufficient to dissuade vandals.

Instead of applying this protection by default, another option would be to have an easily-accessible setting, allowing an editor to toggle protection of their own user page without having to post on an administrator noticeboard.

The scope of this RfC is limited to the primary user page, not to user talk pages or subpages in the user namespace.

If these proposed changes are adopted, we should see a reduction in reverts due to vandalism to user pages. Success could be measured with queries on samplings of edits (see rationale section for an example). The default semi- or extended-confirmed protection could be implemented for a limited period of time, followed by an assessment of data to determine whether to make the changes permanent.

Rationale

Online harassment is a serious problem, affecting nearly half of all users and nearly three-quarters of women on the Internet.[1] Personal attacks cause emotional distress and decrease editor participation on Wikipedia.[2] Taking online abuse seriously is necessary to the healthy functioning of an Internet community.[3] Restricting user pages from editing by anonymous and new users would help cut down on one source of online harassment.

A study found anonymous editors to be responsible for 85% of vandalism on the English Wikipedia.[4] A sampling of anonymous edits to user namespace (not including subpages) on the English Wikipedia revealed that nearly all of these edits were either vandalism or, very likely, logged-out editing by a registered user.[5][6][7]

There is no demonstrated need for anonymous or new editors to make edits to another editor's user page. If a user requires help editing their own user page, a request would normally be made of an experienced, registered editor.

Protecting user pages from anonymous editing will not interfere with legitimate discussion and debate, nor with sending messages of appreciation or virtual awards. These activities generally take place on user talk pages, and the user can move received awards from their talk page to their user page if they wish.

If user pages are protected by default, programming changes will need to be made so that new users can edit their own pages before reaching the required threshold. Programming changes will also be required if a toggle switch for protection is added to the user settings. The $wgNamespaceProtection setting may allow restriction of namespace editing to certan usergroups. The exact time and resources required for any programming changes needs to be determined.

Comments from the proposer

When I originally presented my Inspire Campaign idea, I had in mind semi-protection of both the user page and the user talk page. However, I was convinced by arguments of several endorsers that it is reasonable to allow anonymous users to edit a user's talk page by default, for the purposes of discussion and feedback on articles.

Options for comment

Option 1: No change to default protection status or settings for user page

Option 2: Default semi-protection for user page

  1. Support, second choice, as proposer. Funcrunch (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Option 3: Default extended confirmed protection for user page

  1. Support, first choice, as proposer. Funcrunch (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Option 4: User-toggled setting for semi-protection of user page

Option 5: User-toggled setting for extended confirmed protection of user page

Discussion

References

  1. ^ "WMF Metrics and Activities Meeting - July 2016 - Slide 28". Wikimedia Foundation. July 28, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2016. Slides are from featured presentation by Maggie Dennis, beginning at 13:35 in video.
  2. ^ "WMF Metrics and Activities Meeting - July 2016 - Slide 33". Wikimedia Foundation. July 28, 2016. Retrieved August 4, 2016. See also: Harassment Survey 2015 - Results Report.
  3. ^ Dash, Anil (May 27, 2016). "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse". Humane Tech. Medium. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
  4. ^ Andrew G. West; Sampath Kannan; Insup Lee (January 1, 2010). "Detecting Wikipedia Vandalism via Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Revision Metadata". Penn Libraries. University of Pennsylvania. p. 5. Retrieved August 4, 2016.
  5. ^ "Looking at anonymous edits in User: namespace on English Wikipedia". August 24, 2016. Retrieved August 27, 2016.
  6. ^ "Query on anonymous editing in the User: namespace on en.wiki". August 24, 2016. Retrieved August 27, 2016.
  7. ^ "Exploring anonymous activity in User space (enwiki)". Retrieved August 27, 2016.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch/Protect_userspace_RfC_draft"