Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MikeLynch (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 11 July 2012 (→{{la|Sophie Lefèvre}}: "official"ly declining). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. All IP edits are either vandalism or removal of vandalism. If the vandal is the same person, they're hopping IP address too much for range blocks to work. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Farine (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested to prevent repeated insertion of copyrighted text by one or more new and unregistered editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – as player was born in northern ireland but plays for ireland he is seen as controversial. C. 22468 Talk to me 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: The article was protected for edit warring for a couple of weeks ago [1]. In addition, the article used to be semi-protected indefinitely in the past. The lead of the article that contained alternative names has been stable until recently. However, someone has made a demand that the alternative should be removed from the lead. Then there was a debate on the talk page of the article where most of the involved users supported mentioning the alternatve names in the lead. One might think that it looks like a consensus (not an unanimous one though but it still looks like a consesus). Consequently, I restored the alternative names in the lead. However, an Ip user who is perhaps a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of User:Bizovne removed them saying that no consensus for inserting alternative names in the lead.--Nmate (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. LF (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent removal of balanced, referenced coverage of a controversial topic by multiple IPs. This has been going on for months, and the article has been semi-protected twice since May April. The last protection was one month. Meters (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Change request to Indefinite semi-protection. Edit war over the same passage has been going on since September 2011, and the page has been protected because of this edit war three times since then. Current IPs are probably socks of User:West1806, who was indef'ed in April for socking to continue this edit war. Meters (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. This is the target of a content dispute which is rapidly heading towards an edit war. I'd protect it myself, but after the unpleasantness at WP:ARBMAC2 (and my revert a few days ago on this article) I'll leave this to someone who is totally disinterested. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – See discussion at WP:ANI#Need help here!, article continues to be edited with war content. Suggest full protection until ANI discussion finishes. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Per the ANI discussion, and Salvio's blocking of the socks, I'm guessing this is largely moot? Let me/this noticeboard know if you continue to face problems with the article. Thanks, Lynch7 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – persistent vandalism from unregistered users , changing data without discussing in talk page. Shrikanthv (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) The page doesn't seem to have a lot of reverts at the moment. Possibly a temp protection/wait would be best.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, it's been a long-term issue spanning many months, most of the May-July edits are either reverts or unconstructive or otherwise vandalism and in-between the constructive edits in the months before, there are still a substantial amount of reverts. Although I wouldn't say indefinite protection, maybe 1-2 years. James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:28pm • 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Several of us are getting tired of HandsomeFella changing the lead daily. Could we get maybe a week of full protection at this April-July version? With Wimbledon over maybe it will blow over or talk will ensue by that time. Maybe not, but I think it's worth a try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eh, any reason why you're not talking right now? "Several of us" means you and one other editor. This edit war is so silly that I don't even want to protect this article. Talk it out. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We tried at an ani. No go. It was sitting at a position since April and now in July it is being changed. I had put forth 5 different alternatives at the ani and on other talk pages. I thought maybe in a week... but, oh well, thanks for taking the time to at least look at it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Drmies, the essay WP:TENNISNAMES was broadly discussed in RfC and resoundingly rejected. User Fyunck has added this "Foreign name known as tennis name" formula to over 100x BLP ledes counter to the example François Mitterrand used twice in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies/WP:OPENPARA&WP:FULLNAME. (I counted 110x BLPs at one point using Google). The first one seems to be Saša Hiršzon. As per the edit history of Saša Hiršzon Fyunck has repeatedly been reminded of the result of WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:OPENPARA by I count over a dozen other editors, but will edit to ensure his tennis-lede-formula stays in the article. Anyone here on Requests for page protection who doubts this is welcome to try editing the lede per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies style and see what happens. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider taking this up at the dispute resolution noticeboard. James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:38pm • 05:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. Per Drmies. Its official only if it has a shiny red icon next to it! Lynch7 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: match protection with Template:Centralized discussion, which uses it. benzband (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Current edit war instigated by an anonymous editor using different IP addresses, he has been reported for vandalism already so he knows he should not be doing it. I suspect that semi-protection will make him go away, and then the page can be unprotected again. (There is a long history of reverting the deletion of a particular sentence over the last few days, and the reason the sentence can not remian in the article has been explained on the talk page.) Richard75 (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, someone already did it. Richard75 (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Parsecboy. (1 week) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection Recently removed with no reason; highly-visible page. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I don't see any reason for move protection in the logs. Article was never moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "10:59, 14 June 2008 Acalamari (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Rihanna (Grawp target [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]) (hist) ". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.
    Move protection shouldn't uses pre-emptively. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Move-protection was used because the WP:FILTER catched a long-term vandal. Please inform yourself. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: I'm not sure why this request has been made, the logs show the article has been indefinitely move protected since July 4. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: ‎[move=autoconfirmed] := Every autoconfirmed user can move the page. If it were move-protected, than it would be [move=sysyop]. (Although unnecessary.) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While you see "unnecessary" protection, I see +4,000 + +24,000 reasons to do so. While you claim that "pages are not protected-pre-emptively, a WP:PP rule, you are ignoring deliberately the WP:MOVP clause: "Highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved". Both Colorado and Rihanna are WP:PRIMARYTOPICs and widely visited pages, thus, they are in risk to be moved to nonsense stuff like ""Ì-ÌERMY?", this or S·ſAGGĖR, or many other pages that were moved or intended to be moved by Grawp but they triggered the filter log. Please do not act as a robot, or pretend to be an admin, and for the third time, learn to ignore all rules, especially when do not hurt the project, and their absence damages the project. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting to the "pretending to be an admin"-bit in your comment is, that you relisted the pages, and the reviewing admin said: "One case of page move vandalism which was swiftly reverted. WP:MOVP does not normally allow indefinite move-protection simply on grounds of a lack of reason to move. Both pages have had their pages moved for valid reasons in the past and could do so again.. In this case there wasn't even one page move. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I re-listed two out of three pages that a non-admin (you) contested, and to admin eyes declined, and let no real admins to make the comment. User:CT Cooper did a valid decline as Smallville (TV series) and Thirty Seconds to Mars are valid enough to make a move. 40 Seconds to Uranus + 40 Seconds to Mars + Smellyville were the page-move vandalism that "wasn't even" exist, as you said. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tbhotch asked me to comment here. It is true that I move-protected Rihanna years ago as a result of Grawp, and obviously the move-protection remained. I won't re-implement my old protection for obvious reasons, but as Rihanna is an extremely high profile figure I can't see any reason to move this page (Grawp is gone, but what possible reason could someone have to move the page now?): I see no issues with someone re-instating the move-protection. Also see my comment below for Colorado. Acalamari 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I'm confused. This article is currently indefinitely edit and move semi-protected, and has been since 4 July 2012. What is the issue here? Is the OP asking for full move-protection? While I agree that there is no reason to move the page, I don't see why full move-protection is justified at this point. Unlike Colorado (below), this article is semi-protected indefinitely from both editing and moving from unconfirmed editors. Horologium (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They're asking for the article to be move protected, ie. only those with administrative rights are allowed to move it. It's common practice for articles on artists, musicians, politicians etc. to be move protected indefinitely as they're frequented by vandals. James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:47pm • 05:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'm going to go ahead and make the decline official. Policy simply doesn't allow us to pre-emptively apply extra restrictions just on the theory that some day someone might register an account, get it to autoconfirmed status, and then attempt to move this article. By that logic, we'd fully move protect every BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – To stop vandalism and unnecessary edit war. Skashifakram (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. I can see how this could be controversial, but I don't really see any major vandalism in the article history; not in 2-3 months at least. Lynch7 12:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Non-registered users are just adding anything. Registered users add meaningful data but noon-registered users add anything on their own. And mostly they do more than one edit so it becomes difficult to revert them every time. The quality of the article is degrading day by day. People are adding new sections, clearing data from previously existing sections and changing sub-sections into sections. Either that protection status needs to be upgraded or there won't be any other option than to go for an edit war which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry, but I am really frustrated. I am reaching the limit of good faith. Please look into it. Thanks and regards, Vishal14K | Talk 10:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's try it out for 3 months; all this caste vandalism is difficult to detect and ascertain. Lynch7 12:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot! 3 months will be more than enough to remove all this malicious content. By then, I will try to take it to the GA status. Then, we can check it again. If vandalism still persists, then make it indefinitely protected. Thanks again and regards, Vishal14K | Talk 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Unprotection: The disputes has ended, so it's pretty much worthless for the file to be protected.--Plea$ant 1623 11:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Indefinite full-protection:Indefinitely blocked user.--影武者 赵明毅 (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Makecat (talk · contribs) isn't blocked. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 07:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=501736257"