User:GreenMeansGo/Page protector

Version 1

Extended content

The proposal is to create a "Page protector" user right, which would allow users to semi-protect articles for a period of one hour. The purpose of this right is to allow editors who regularly and accurately report pages for semi-protection to WP:RFPP to semi-protect high-view, high-volume-vandalism pages while allowing administrators on RFPP time to respond to the report. The proposed restrictions of the right are as follows: The user must immediately report the page to RFPP for evaluation of the protection by an administrator, and potential extension or revocation thereof, as the purpose of the right is to act as a stop gap in the case that there is a delay in response from RFPP. Revocation of the protection is non-negotiable. The decision to protect or not to protect ultimately rests with administrators, as the core purpose of the right is merely to provide a window for that decision to be made. The right is only to be used in situations where the vandalism is repeated, excessive, and warranting of such preventative measures where there is a high likelihood it will help protect readers from viewing vandalized versions of an article in the expectedly short time for RFPP to decide whether to semi-protect or further protect an article for some appropriate duration. The right is not to be used in cases of routine vandalism, where serial reversion under a WP:3RR exception would easily suffice. Users with this right would not be able to unprotect articles, even those they themselves have protected. Users will usually not be considered for the right unless they have completed at least 50 successful reports to RFPP, with a high level of accuracy. Applicants are expected to have read and demonstrated an understanding of WP:VANDALISM as well as WP:PROTECT, and have a demonstrable track record of counter vandalism work. The right may be removed by any uninvolved administrator who has reason to believe it is being improperly or uncautiously used. The right may be summarily removed from any user who employs it as a means to resolve a content dispute not consisting of obvious vandalism, only to be reinstated by community consensus overturning the administrative action of removal, or an appropriate period of anti-vandalism editing and accurate RFPP reporting demonstrating the user is able to responsibly employ the right. Discussion Re-reading this for about the fifth time now, one of my main concerns is that it not be a one click operation. Anyone with rollback has probably accidentally reverted someone from their watchlist in a single click. My other concern is that I have no idea what the technical difficulties in actually implementing this are, and I worry that the strict-ish guidance of the proposal will only be enforced in the more egregious of circumstances, in the way that non-vandalism rollback is currently fairly laxly enforced. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Please discuss on the related talk. TimothyJosephWood 00:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Version 2

The proposal is to create a "Page protector" user right, which would allow users to semi-protect articles for up to 24 hours.

Problem needing solution

• Reports to RFPP often have a non-trivial delay in response time, which may be of little consequence to persistent but occasional longer-term vandalism, but in cases where an article is receiving exceptionally high traffic due to breaking news and the like, a delay of even several minutes may result in scores or hundreds of readers viewing a vandalized (often badly) version of an article.
• Because these articles are most likely to be vandalized by anonymous or newly registered accounts, semi-protection is usually sufficient, and because the events themselves that cause such exceptionally high traffic are usually fleeting, short term protection is often all that is needed.

Restrictions

• Users would only be technically permitted to protect pages in WP:MAINSPACE.
• Users may only semi-protect to stop ongoing obvious vandalism or blatant BLP violations (that is, addition of unsourced negative information). Socking, edit warring, other disruptive editing, etc. are off limits.
• Users with this right would not be able to unprotect articles, even those they themselves have protected.
• Users will usually not be considered for the right unless they have a reliable history of reporting at RFPP with a high level of accuracy. Applicants are expected to have read and demonstrated an understanding of WP:VANDALISM as well as WP:PROTECT, and have a demonstrable track record of counter vandalism work.
• Protection may be removed by any uninvolved administrator, whether by request at WP:RFPP or otherwise. Protection removed by an administrator must not be reinstated by any Page Protector. Similarly, the right itself may be removed by any uninvolved administrator who has reason to believe it is being improperly or uncautiously used. For these purposes, Administrators who have previously protected the same articles as the editor are not considered involved.