Wikipedia page protection explained

What is page protection on Wikipedia?

Page protection is a setting that restricts which accounts can edit, move or create a particular Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's protection policy describes it as a technical restriction applied only by administrators, used when there is disruption that cannot be stopped by other means such as blocking the accounts responsible.

Wikipedia starts from the principle that anyone can edit, so the policy aims to keep as many pages open as possible. Protection is therefore the exception. It is applied for as short a time as will work and at the lowest level that will stop the problem, and it can be set to expire or, in persistent cases, left in place indefinitely.

A protected article usually shows a small padlock icon at the top right, coloured by level. Every protection action is written to the public protection log with the administrator's name, the level, the duration and a short reason, and the page appears on Special:ProtectedPages. Even when editing is locked, anyone can still view and copy the page's source text.

What are the levels of Wikipedia page protection?

Wikipedia uses five main editing levels, which differ in which accounts may still edit the page directly. The thresholds below are those set out in the protection policy.

Separate from editing, administrators can apply three other types of protection:

• Move protection stops a page being renamed, and is used for page-move vandalism and disputes about a page's title. New accounts cannot move pages anyway, so it is set at extended confirmed or full level.
• Create protection, known as salting, stops a page being created at a title that has been deleted and repeatedly recreated. Its consequences for a later attempt are covered in what a failed Wikipedia attempt leaves behind.
• Upload protection stops new versions of an image or other file being uploaded.

Pending changes needs a word of explanation because it is often misunderstood. The page is not locked. A new account's edit is saved and visible to logged-in users, but readers who are not logged in, who are the great majority, keep seeing the last accepted version until a pending changes reviewer or administrator approves the edit. The policy notes that such edits are typically reviewed within several hours. An earlier, stricter second level of pending changes was retired from the English Wikipedia in January 2017.

Who can protect a Wikipedia page?

Only Wikipedia's administrators can protect a page. They are volunteer editors given the tools after a community review or election, not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the only exception is a rare office action, where Wikimedia Foundation staff protect a page in response to issues such as copyright infringement or libel.

No private firm can protect a page, and that includes us. A paid editor, a reputation agency or a public relations company has no access to the protection tools, and Wikipedia's scam warning lists "protecting an article from changes" among the services scammers typically offer for money. The same page states that paid editors have no authority beyond that of any other volunteer editor. An offer to lock a page, or to guarantee that it will stay as it is, should be treated as a warning sign.

The protection policy also limits administrators. One who has made substantive content changes to an article is treated as involved and must not use the tools to further their own position, and the conflict of interest guideline says administrators must not use their tools for paid editing work.

When will administrators protect a page?

Administrators protect a page when there is current, ongoing disruption that blocking individual accounts will not stop. The usual triggers are:

• persistent vandalism, especially from unregistered users or new accounts whose IP addresses keep changing;
• repeated violations of the biographies of living persons policy, such as unsourced allegations being added again and again;
• sockpuppets of blocked or banned users returning to the same page;
• a sudden wave of disruption after media attention, which typically earns temporary semi-protection or pending changes;
• an edit war between several established editors, which may lead to a short period of full protection so that the dispute moves to the talk page.

The level and length are matched to the problem. A burst of vandalism after a news story might bring a few days or weeks of semi-protection. Indefinite semi-protection is reserved for pages with heavy and persistent vandalism or content policy violations, and the policy names biographies of living persons among the examples. Extended confirmed protection is normally used only where semi-protection has already proved ineffective, except in topic areas the Arbitration Committee or the community has placed under special restrictions.

When are protection requests refused?

Requests are refused when there is not enough recent disruption, when the request is pre-emptive, or when the real problem is a disagreement about content. The protection policy says protecting a page solely as a pre-emptive measure is generally not allowed. Semi-protection, pending changes and extended confirmed protection must not be used to favour one group of editors over another in a valid content dispute.

The administrators who answer requests use a standard set of responses, and the common refusals are worth knowing because they appear, word for word, in the archived request:

Even when an administrator does fully protect a page during an edit war, the protection is not an endorsement of the version that happens to be live. A humour page on Meta-Wiki called "The Wrong Version" makes the point from the other side: there are no reports of an administrator ever having protected the right one. The policy does, however, require administrators to avoid protecting a version that contains vandalism, copyright violations, defamation or poor-quality material about a living person, and editors can ask, through an edit request, for the page to be returned to a stable version from before the dispute.

How does anyone request page protection?

Any editor can ask for protection at Requests for page protection, a noticeboard with separate sections for requests to increase protection, to reduce it, and for edits to pages that are already protected. The process is short:

1. Read the protection policy and decide which level fits the problem. Asking for full protection to stop a new account vandalising a page will not succeed.
2. Collect the evidence: links to the specific edits (diffs) showing recent, repeated disruption, and the dates.
3. Post the request in the section for increases, giving the page name, the level and duration sought, and a short, factual reason.
4. Wait for an administrator to respond. They may grant the request at a different level or for a shorter period, decline it with one of the standard responses, or say the page is already protected.

To lift or reduce protection, the policy asks you to approach the administrator who applied it first, on their user talk page. Only if they are inactive or do not respond should you file a request for reduction, and requests that skip that step are normally declined.

Every request stays on record. Answered requests are archived, so a subject who asks for their own article to be locked during a content dispute leaves a dated, public request showing exactly that, with the refusal beneath it.

What does protection mean for the subject of a page?

For a page's subject, protection changes less than it seems, because Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline already strongly discourages them from editing the article directly. People connected to a subject, and anyone paid to edit on their behalf, are expected to disclose the connection and propose changes on the talk page so that independent editors can review them. The edit requests information page makes the same point: editors with a conflict of interest should generally use an edit request even when they are technically able to edit.

The request goes on the article's talk page with a template matched to the situation:

• Template:Edit COI for requests from anyone with a conflict of interest, protected page or not;
• Template:Edit semi-protected, Template:Edit extended-protected or Template:Edit fully-protected for editors who cannot edit because of the protection level.

On a fully protected page, only administrators can make the change, and they act only on uncontroversial improvements or changes already supported by consensus on the talk page. In topic areas under the extended confirmed restriction, editors who are not extended confirmed may only make edit requests, and only for uncontroversial changes.

Protection can help a subject in one real sense. Where a biography is repeatedly hit by unsourced claims, semi-protection or pending changes keeps new and anonymous accounts from adding them, and the subject's own requests are then dealt with on a calmer page. What protection cannot do is stop established editors adding well-sourced material the subject dislikes. That is a content question, settled on the talk page.

When is it worth getting help with a protected page?

If a page is being vandalised in an obvious way, you do not need anyone's help. Note the diffs, make a short factual request at the noticeboard, and an administrator will decide. Clear vandalism on a biography can also be removed directly, even by its subject, under the conflict of interest guideline's exceptions.

The harder cases are the ones where protection is asked for but is not the right tool. A subject who sees a damaging edit, asks for the page to be locked and is told it is a content dispute has gained nothing and added a request to the archive. If the same person then edits the protected article through an account that meets the threshold, or asks colleagues to, the problem moves from the article to their conduct.

What usually works is slower and less dramatic: establish whether the edit breaches a specific policy, raise it on the talk page with sources, use an edit request for the correction, and take biography problems to the biographies of living persons noticeboard if the talk page does not resolve them. Protection is requested only when the record shows sustained disruption that meets the policy. That is how we work on protected and unprotected pages alike.

If you are not sure whether a page's problems call for protection, an edit request or neither, our page health check reads the history, logs and talk page and tells you which route fits.