 | This is not a Wikipedia (yet) a request for comment: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. The current/final version of this page may be located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection now or in the future. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Background
editExtended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of article protection that only allows edits from accounts with 500 edits and 30 days account age. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibit editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion that established a few expectations for use of the protection within the scope of arbitration enforcement.
The protection policy currently states that extended confirmed protection may only be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or as a result of community consensus
(per this discussion). However, it also states that Criteria for community use have not been established.
This request for comment seeks to establish such a community process for the use of extended confirmed protection.
Currently, the two protection levels in common use are semiprotection, which allows edits from registered accounts with 10 edits and 4 days tenure, and full protection, which allows edits by administrators only. Some vandals have managed to skirt semiprotection and cause some disruption; see this discussion for an example. However, the vast majority of vandalism can be stopped by semiprotection.
Options
editPlease choose one or more of the following options:
- Option A: Allow use only by the Arbitration Committee (community cannot use it)
- Option B: Allow use by community consensus at a relevant forum (AN, ANI, the village pump or a RfC)
- Option C: Allow use on pages that have an established history of particularly persistant and disruptive vandalism which would circumvent semiprotection
- Option D: Allow administrators to apply at their discretion against vandalism where semi protection is not or would not be effective to control the disruption
- Option E: Allow administrators to apply at their discretion when the page would otherwise merit full protection, but 30/500 protection is deemed sufficient
- Option F: Allow use on some pages (usually templates) where the high number of transclusions would normally merit template protection
Support option(s) by bolding Option BCE, etc.