Forum:Protect Page Rights

This topic is to discuss the proposal for rollback users to have the ability to protect content to deal with edit wars.

Summary
So recently we've had a spate of revert warring which continues because User A continually puts the information that is being removed by various users. I propose that those with the rollback power have the ability to protect content when no admins are around so that the vandalism can stop, but rollbackers cannot remove the protection. This would allow for a rollbacker to quickly protect a page until an admin came online to deal with the situation. Please discuss below and leave your support or opposition to this by leaving your signature under the appropriate heading. Thanks! :)

Support

 * 1) --Speysider Talk Page 14:09, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Norleon (talk) 14:10, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) — Shakhmoot  Nadeshiko Village Symbol.svg (Talk) 14:15, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) --Charmanking2198 (talk) 14:18, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) conditioned support --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 14:21, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Seelentau 愛議 14:28, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) --White Flash (Contact) 14:31, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) --  The Talk Goblin  14:43, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) ~IndxcvNovelist (talk 17:25, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) --ROOT 根 (talk) 18:02, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I agree with this, but only if the situation is a complete mess and needs to be stopped for real. I think I don't need to name an example...Norleon (talk) 14:12, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with this in theory. It would tie in nicely with the 3 revert tule etc. However I don't believe that it should be a right given to all rollback users. As it is currently, there are about 20 persons in that group and as its been said its a right that's doled out to anyone. The need to protect a page should be something that's escalated to a different middle group. Essentially give the rights to a specific number of persons- I doubt more than 5 would be needed- set the conditions of use so that there can be some sort of contingency until an Admin can come/ a discussion is completed for less obvious vandalism.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 14:21, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well I haven't been here for quite some time, but the revert war is still going on. I'm not sure if that ability can be granted, then again if Staff can allow Rollback users to give other users rollback rights they may allow Rollbacks to protect pages.--White Flash (Contact) 14:23, July 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * @Cerez: Not a bad suggestion there, but unsure if Wikia would allow the creation of a "Moderator" style group.
 * @White Flash: Rollbackers have had the ability to grant rollback rights for a year or so now I think. --Speysider Talk Page 14:44, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikia easily can and will if the community wants so. But I guess the unprotection right would also come along  ~ Ultimate  Supreme  15:17, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * @UltimateSupreme: That's awesome! But the proposal above would be pointless if the new group came with permissions that aren't wanted as it'd just become another admin group. So maybe sticking with giving rollbackers the protect page right (and removal of rollback status if it's abused) --Speysider Talk Page 15:42, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got a little confused there. Imo, a completely new group might be better. ~ Ultimate  Supreme  15:49, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's what the majority of the community here wants, I'm fine with that. I proposed giving the rollback group the protection power since I wasn't sure if Wikia would allow for a new group on the wiki. :P --Speysider Talk Page 16:55, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * There was never a need for this when IPs could edit, and without IPs the usefulness of this particular right plummets since a) it will rarely be used, and b) if someone actually wants to cause harm to the wiki - which a registered user has a greater ability to do than an IP - page protection alone is not going to stop them; they can still move pages, upload images, create new pages, and edit the other thousands of articles. What it sounds like you want is another sysop. ~SnapperTo 18:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think another sysop is needed per se, but as I pointed out in my proposal, the user would only be able to protect pages and nothing more, nor even remove the protection they applied. As shown during the edit/revert warring earlier, there was no admin on and it was a battle of a large number of users to keep reverting edits. If the rollbacks had protection powers (considering that a particular user only kept changing two pages), then the rollbacks could just quickly add protection to the page until an admin came online to deal with it. As I proposed, it would be as a stop gap, quick measure until an admin came online to deal with it fully. There are too many sysops as it is and today, nobody was online until hours after the edit warring came into place. The purpose of my proposal would be to ensure that if the three-revert rule was broken, someone could quickly drop in and protect the page for a short time until an admin came on to deal with it all. --Speysider Talk Page 18:08, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree because all the constant edit spamming and persistent vandalism to articles is very annoying and sometimes some people don't will not listen and so somebodys got to keep It under control and protect the page until and admin comes, so I think this Is a really good Idea --ROOT 根 (talk) 18:11, July 7, 2013 (UTC)