User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mentoring/Archtransit/Protection

We protect pages on the project to help protect the encyclopedia from damage. The protection policy governs when, where and how the tool should be used. All actions using the protect button should have a protective (rather than punitive outcome). We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit so we should try and leave pages open as much as possible. We have a variety of different reasons for protecting pages, and a number of different options when doing so. When protecting pages our main considerations are as follows;

1. Should the protection cover IP and new user accounts or should editing a page be blocked for everyone accept administrators?
2. What length of time is necessary to have a positive outcome?

Semi protection

Vandalism

Semi protection blocks IP’s and new user accounts from editing pages. Vandalism is often a key reason for using this. When protecting an article because of vandalism, we should protect it for as little length of time as possible. We should remember that many IP’s and new user accounts will give us constructive edits and locking them out of pages will mean we lose valued contributions. When determining if semi protection should be applied, you should look at the history of the article and look at the number of vandalism edits that have occurred from IP’s and determine whether or not protection is really necessary. As a rough guide, there should be 15-20 bad edits in a 24 hour period to use semi protection on an article, or constant abuse from IP’s (5-15 bad edits a day) over a continued period (such as a week). When doing this, you should also take into account whether or not there have been constructive edits from IP’s or new user accounts in this period – if there are, you need to ask, would it be better to keep the page open and simply revert the vandalism in order to keep constructive edits from IP’s and new users? Remember: Semi protection should only be used with high numbers of unconstructive edits to a page.

Editing disputes

Semi protection should hardly ever be used to solve editing disputes. By locking an IP out in order to solve a content dispute, you are effectively ruling that the registered user had won the dispute. If there is a content dispute involving edit warring, you should fully protect the article so one side isn’t given an advantage over the other.

Length of time for semi protection

If it is the first time a page has been protected (you can check this by looking at the page logs) then 24 hours is long enough to stop many problems on the pages. As with other editing sanctions, we increase the length of time after future abuses, so if the problems continue, semi protect for longer periods. 48 hours, then a week, then a month then 3 months – but don’t start with long lengths of time – work your way up with it.

Full protection

When you fully protect an article, you block all users, except for administrators from editing the page. The major reason for doing this is to stop edit warring or disruptive editing from number of parties.

When to use full protection

If there is an edit war occurring, with multiple parties getting involved, the page should be protected to keep the content stable. An appropriate length of time is 72 hours, although many admins choose to protect articles indefinitely so there is no set period for getting consensus. Parties can then request unprotection when consensus has formed.

Protection should be used to enforce the biographies of living people policy. If multiple autoconfirmed users are adding unsourced facts about a person in a biographical article, it should be protected to stop further abuse. If there is just one user doing it, a block (after a warning is more appropriate).

When not to use full protection

Never protect an article that you are involved in editing – this is classed as an abuse of the tool. If an edit war breaks out on a page you edit, seek protection from requests for page protection like any non admin would do so a neutral admin can look at the page in question.

If there is clearly one person acting disruptively on a page (e.g. they’ve broken 3RR on a page with many other users only reverting once each, with no other person on the disruptive users side) you should consider blocking the user causing the disruption, rather than locking the entire page. Please note however, you should seriously look at reverts, and generally only block after a user has reverted 4 times in a 24 hour period.

Editing a protected page

Administrators should hardly ever edit a protected page. They should get involved in consensus forming discussion on the talk page if they wish to change content. The only exceptions are removing BLP infringing content, or editing high risk templates such as the ones used on the main page (e.g. T:DYK).

Tasks

The following examples are designed to challenge your knowledge about when and where to use protection. Please review the scenarios, and for each, state whether or not you would give; no protection, semi protection or full protection and if you decide to protect, a length of time. A reason for your decision would also be helpful.

1) An article has had 50 edits in the previous 24 hours. 25 have been vandalism edits, and 25 have been reverts of the vandalism. What would be an appropriate action?
Answer: a) Semi-protection as a first step

b) One or two user doing the vandalism - warn or block the users.

c) refer to another admin if I am extensively involved in editing the article (applicable to all these scenarios).

2) For the 24 hours, six respected users have been involved in an edit war on an article – there have so far been 14 reversions and no editor has the broken the three revert rule. What should be done?
Answer: a) Seek common ground. Often, there are small aspects that all agree. Focus on these areas first. This is something that tends to be overlooked by others. For example, even in the most contentious subjects, most editors will agree that WP:RS (reliable sources) should be followed. That's a start.

b) full protection for limited duration, such as 72 hours. Many admin favor doing b) only and not attempt a). This is considered acceptable but I think incorporation of a) is better.

3) A respected editor with 5000 edits and an IP user are edit warring on an article, they are have not broken 3RR, but the revert warring needs to be stopped. What should be done?
Answer: The article should be fully protected to stop the edit war. As semi protection would only stop the IP editing, it gives an unfair advantage to the registered user so only full protection will do. 72 hours would probably be enough. If the respected user is an administrator, full protection will still allow the administrator to edit so other steps need to be taken. Trying to reduce conflict and resolve the edit dispute may also be helpful. This step is sometimes omitted but can be helpful in resolving the underlying conflict.

4) An article about a living person has come under attack my a number of sleeper accounts which are all 3 months old. They are adding defamatory content into the articles. Blocks to each user account don’t seem to be working. Would protection work?
Answer: I would block only on the basis of BLP violations. Full protection may be needed if BLP violations continue from previously inactive accounts.

5) An article previous protected 5 times for vandalism (the last protection was for a month) has come under attack again with numerous IP vandalism edits, and few constructive ones. What should be done?
Answer: a) I would block only on the basis of BLP violations.

b) Full protection may be needed if BLP violations continue from inactive accounts.

6) An article you are not involved in editing, about a living person has been fully protected due to an edit war. You notice a statement within the article that says the person is homosexual, but no references back it up. After a google search, you cannot find any references. What should you do?
Answer: Remove the material that has no citation. I think Jimbo Wales said, "we must get it right".