Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection
 | This is an explanatory essay about the protection policy semi-protection section. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
Semi-protection is a measure commonly used on Wikipedia to protect pages from vandalism or editing disputes. A semi-protected article can only be edited by registered accounts that have made at least 10 edits to the English Wikipedia and after 4 days have passed since the time of their first edit (autoconfirmed users).[1] The official policy related to applying and removing semi-protection is located at Wikipedia:Protection policy § Semi-protection. This rough guide describes how the semi-protection policy is currently being applied by administrators.
Note: Every case is different. Even if a page matches each of the § General considerations and § Criteria for semi-protection, it doesn't mean that page must be protected. Administrators may use their discretion on a case-by-case basis. Semi-protection is useful for pages that are highly visible on Wikipedia. An example of a semi-protected page on Wikipedia is September 11 attacks.
General considerations
Both editors requesting semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP) and administrators considering its application must evaluate each case independently before determining an appropriate course of action.
- Is the problem vandalism or an editing dispute?
- How much vandalism is taking place?
- Is the vandalism from a wide range of new accounts or temporary accounts?
- Are any constructive edits being made to the page, especially from unregistered users?
- Is the problem on a high-profile, widely watchlisted page?
- Does the problem have a detrimental effect on how Wikipedia looks to the public?
- Is the subject of the page a notable living person?
- What is the quality of this article? Higher-quality articles are more damaged by vandalism than similar low-quality articles, and there's also less likelihood that a given edit will improve the article. In addition, since higher-quality articles are generally bigger, there is less likelihood that the article will be edited.
- Is the article on a currently controversial topic?
The template {{pp-protected}} is usually placed on protected pages to display the padlock.
Criteria for semi-protection
Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism and other disruptive edits can be semi-protected. There are no explicit rules that determine the level of disruptive editing that is necessary to trigger semi-protection. Administrators should use their best judgment to determine if semi-protection is warranted. Here are some criteria that may be helpful to determine if semi-protection is appropriate:
- All or almost all the disruption is coming from new or temporary accounts.
- Non-autoconfirmed editors should be making very few quality contributions to the article compared to the amount of disruptive edits coming from non-autoconfirmed editors. The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism.
- There are regularly many new vandals or users making disruptive edits, therefore it would be a huge, unending task to notify and warn all the users individually.
- According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 § Conclusions, on average 5% of edits to a page are vandalism. So, 5% is the level of vandalism to be expected, and semi-protection should not be applied in this case. More than usual levels of vandalism occur when anything over 5% of edits constitute vandalism. If each vandal edit was followed by a revert, without any further edits to the page, then 50% of edits would be vandalism. More than 50% is rare but may occur when multiple vandalism edits are reverted by a single edit, or when multiple vandals are engaged in an edit war. The higher the percentage of vandal edits, the greater the need for protection.
- Consider a lower threshold for protection for articles on living people as vandalism is potentially more damaging in these cases.
Determining the duration for semi-protection
If semi-protection is to be tried, its first application should be for a short duration, a few hours, a few days, or a week depending on the type of page being protected and the level of disruption. It can also be helpful to review the article history to determine how long the disruption has been a significant problem.
If vandalism continues after the protection expires, semi-protection can be re-applied, potentially for a longer duration. At some point, an administrator might determine that the semi-protection should be made indefinite. This is reserved for only the most vandalized articles and specific topics subject to general sanctions, and any administrator is free to lift 'indefinite' protections or reduce them to a duration that will eventually expire.
- Pages that are indefinitely semi-protected must have been semi-protected previously. This shows that the problem is ongoing, and that temporary semi-protection does not have a lasting effect.
- Vandalism that resumes very shortly after semi-protection is removed demonstrates that the page is a popular target for random vandalism. Such pages are likely candidates for indefinite semi-protection.
- If vandalism is related to a current event, the semi-protection should be lifted after the event is out of the public eye.
Shortening or removing protection
Since effective page protection prevents disruption from occurring on the pages to which it is applied, one way to determine whether protection is still necessary is to remove it and observe whether disruptive editing returns or continues afterward. For this reason, pages that are indefinitely semi-protected may have their protection removed periodically, or have their protection reduced to pending-changes protection. The administrator who makes this change should monitor the page afterward and take appropriate remedial action if disruptive editing resumes or continues from the period before the page was originally protected. High-traffic pages, or pages with lengthy protection logs, are usually not good candidates that should be considered for such tests.
Notes
- ^ When determining an account's autoconfirmed status, the 'account age' is now calculated starting from when they made their first edit, not the account's registration date, per phab:T418484.