Hey, I'm back with another question. Would it be possible to restrict regular users from creating pages? Me and other staff members are sick of seeing stuff like this this. Or maybe it would be possible to restrict users whose account is less than 6 months old from creating pages?
You can restrict users from editing on a wiki if they have not registered an account (ie. disable anonymous editing), but restricting content creation beyond that, and blocking users from normal editing activity when they have legitimate registered accounts goes against the spirit of editing in a wiki environment. I know how it can be frustrating to see nonsense/unnecessary pages get created over and over again (I've experienced it on several wikis), but wikis are inherently designed to be open spaces where users from all walks of life have the ability to contribute content freely. Limiting access to a select group/club of just a few users is not what wikis are designed for. While you are certainly free to remove articles after the fact, if they do not align with the wiki's rules, preemptively taking away the ability for users to create articles before they have the chance to, would be the opposite of assuming good faith toward a wiki's editors.
If you are having problems with an abnormally high amount of "unnecessary" articles being created on the wiki, and it is time consuming to sort through the recent activity to find them, it might be worth checking Special:Newpages every couple of days, to easily spot what is new (and possibly unnecessary), without having to browse though all of the wiki's activity. - Sitb(Message wall / Talk page) 10:38, April 4, 2020 (UTC)
Presumably, the way pages on a wiki are named is a design choice set in place by administrators. So, disallowing unapproved re-naming of certain problem pages shouldn't be an issue. However, is this a widespread problem you are having on this wiki, or are you just thinking ahead to what could possibly happen in the future?
Preemptively placing limitations on the user editing experience certainly isn't recommended. Limiting access to certain features really ought to be reactionary - that is, measures should be put in place only when there is justification to do so. - Sitb(Message wall / Talk page) 09:35, April 7, 2020 (UTC)
The pages are protected from moving, because it was one of the vandal's main focus to mess with. They'd find random pages to rename into vulgar things. Since we can't delete history, it was better to just protect everything from moving to prevent nasty things in histories.
It sounds like you have a situation then, where move-protecting articles could indeed help to prevent the type of vandalism you've already been experiencing. Personally, I don't think that type of action limits the general userbase too much from contributing/editing properly on the wiki. Random people probably shouldn't be re-naming pages anyway, and it would be easy enough for someone to contact an administrator if they legitimately think a page should be renamed. Unless a full-time staff member tells you otherwise, I don't really think there's an issue with what you're doing in this situation. - Sitb(Message wall / Talk page) 10:30, April 7, 2020 (UTC)