Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Requesting semi-protection of Penistone (HG)
Line 17: Line 17:
==== {{la|Sublimation (phase transition)}}====
==== {{la|Sublimation (phase transition)}}====
'''Pending-changes protection''' - Persistent vandalism. Although it isn't vandalised every day, vandalism is a high proportion of the total edits because it has a low edit rate. Most of it is reverted quickly but I have just found (and undone) some vandalism that had been on the article for months. This indicates that the article would benefit from the extra eyes that PC would afford it. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
'''Pending-changes protection''' - Persistent vandalism. Although it isn't vandalised every day, vandalism is a high proportion of the total edits because it has a low edit rate. Most of it is reverted quickly but I have just found (and undone) some vandalism that had been on the article for months. This indicates that the article would benefit from the extra eyes that PC would afford it. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|pd}}--[[User:Ponyo|<b><font color="Navy">''Jezebel's''</font></b><font color="Navy">Ponyo</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ponyo|<font color="Navy">''bons mots''</font>]]</sup> 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


==== {{la|Istanbul Atatürk Airport}} ====
==== {{la|Istanbul Atatürk Airport}} ====

Revision as of 19:07, 17 December 2012

"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. Persistent vandalism.   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated tagging (3 times in one month) by IP editors. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism most probably done by students towards the sports house section persistently Xanablaka (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bjelleklang - talk 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protection - Persistent vandalism. Although it isn't vandalised every day, vandalism is a high proportion of the total edits because it has a low edit rate. Most of it is reverted quickly but I have just found (and undone) some vandalism that had been on the article for months. This indicates that the article would benefit from the extra eyes that PC would afford it. Yaris678 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Anonymous users to change their pleasure the page, forcing registered users to check the page everyday and delete any changes. It's happened several times in last week. Their delete our changes too. --Wind of freedom (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protection - User request within own user space. Except for accepted username changes, there is no reason for the page to be moved by anyone. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 12:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I can't for the life of me see why but virtually all the edits to this page seem to be anonymous vandalism. It's intermittent though so I don't know if it qualifies for protection. 3 times so far this month, 5 last month (of which one progressively blanked virtually the whole article). Noiratsi (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. Snoozlepet (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Editing conflicts with Crock81 (talk) on this article and the related article List of indigenous peoples. Over the past couple of days the aforementioned individual has conducted upwards of 20 edits on the article, reverting my edits and at least one by ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· with which I am in accord and have since reverted only to have that again reverted for an illegitimate reason, his description not even reflecting the actual state of the article. Please see the discussion here. He is not a native speaker of English and has communications issues. Nonetheless, I have tried to reason with him repeatedly to no avail.

    I filed a request for mediation but he refused to accept. Please see relevant comment by Crock81 under the "I have a concern" section on EdJonston's Talk page, as well as the Request for mediation here.

    The editing problems are related to the RfC on the related List article Indigenous peoples list, and I would like to request protection for at least the period during which that is pending to see what results are produced.

    Refer here Crock81 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Crock81 has now come forth with an expression of his intention to unilaterally rescope the article on the Talk page. That would seem to contravene the results of an RfC from earlier this year Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Persistent addition of bogus/nonexistent flights addedmade by Bangladesh Airport Vandal. Snoozlepet (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. There has been an increase in genre fiddling stemming from IPs since December 1 UTC time. I would recommend but not command it be protected for one month, or two weeks at the very least. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent spamming. The only official link is www.asd-ste100.org, but anonymous and other users keep adding links that probably belong to Shufra Consulting. Temporarily, such websites such as www.asdste100.org (without the hypen) are temporarily redirected to the official webpage to make the link look official, only to later redirect it to the Shufra website. This issue has been going on for some time, and they are using all kinds of tricks. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Inflation and additional of unsourced (and made-up) peak positions. Statυs (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Change from PC to Semi due to vandalism and vandalism only. Vacationnine 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what to ask for but semi-protection is a start (there's registered editors active too) to prevent the ongoing BLP violations related particularly to the subject's arrest and criminal record, sourced to blogs and metalzines. I'll post a note on BLPN as well; this article could do with some extra eyes (yours) and some extra thinking (not mine) on what needs to be done here. See the article history, and explanations on the (now-blanked) talk page of Capchars2 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection until after release date of game in February Nothing but unsourced vandal from IPs EVERY SINGLE TIME a protection is lifted. Please don't protect it for a couple of weeks again. It is way too exhausting having to revert IPs persistent edits with the warning over the section saying not to add unconfirmed characters. Please semi-protect until February 28th, 2013.--Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent disruptive edits from IP users. These might not appear to be vandalism at first, but are obviously false information. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi protection: Persistent vandalism. - Different unregistered IPs changed the logo of the Company, (though it's the right/false positive logo, he replaced the newer version into an older version of it), also added some upcoming films for 2013 without trustful sources. Alphonsewan | Contact Me 09:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – User:Qjtv2911 is always trying to revert all my edits. The only thing I do is just to improve his edits and make the article good to look at. Renzoy16 | Contact Me 10:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Deliberate hoaxing by registered accounts, i.e. by Jaroszek512 and Veki965 despite having the article semi-protected. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Blocking might be the better option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – From what I see, the history has just been 2 IP editors Edit Warring over the past week. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 03:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. While it was just IP editors edit warring, it still makes more sense to me to fully protect for a week. We'll see if anyone actually tries to have a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism. No need for ip or new users to edit. Vacationnine 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: I am just not seeing the problem. Could you post some sample diffs? Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place? -- Dianna (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much every edit to this page by non-autoconfirmed users are vandalism. Sure, it's not frequent, but there is no need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit this, and this page is used quite frequently by autoconfirmed users. Vacationnine 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This page is intended specifically for use by new and unregistered editors, in case they see a problem or know of an addition or change that should be made. It's an integral part of protection Policy in order to maintain the principle that anyone can edit. Altering this would need a policy RfC. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's quite right. It's a category page, intended to categorize the use of {{edit semi-protected}} across various talk pages. New users request edits with the template, not by editing the category page. I agree with the requester that there's usually no need for new users to edit the category page, but it's hardly much of a problem - it has only been vandalized a handful of times per year. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Xe's requesting protection of the category page, the page that lists the talkpages with the {{Edit semi-protected}} on them in a category, and contains instructions for volunteers to respond. I think protection (semi) indefinite shouldn't hurt anything at all. gwickwiretalkedits 23:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Could an admin please close this now? As has been said, semi-protection won't damage anything and there is no need for non-autoconfirmed users to edit this page, as this is only a category showing {{Edit semi-protected}} requests. Pretty much every edit in the history by non-autoconfirmed users or ips are vandalism and are reverted. Vacationnine 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. -- Dianna (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this pre-emptively? Look at the history ... long term vandalism is obvious. Vacationnine 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. krZna (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    CONTINUED vandalism from user [Alan Stenberg] and various sock puppets despite repeated warnings. Page still not locked.

    Done by Drmies. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes: Persistent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Recent spurts of persistent IP and registered-user vandalism. Today alone has seen a strangely high number of vandal edits. dci | TALK 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: IP adding contentious material purportedly sourced from unreliable website (as discussed at WP:RSN), but in fact going beyond what even that site is reporting. This is a sensitive article with legal implications - another potential major UK sexual abuse scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Same group of bitcoin true believers are trying to shoehorn it in here, too. Your Lord and Master (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long term vandalism and BLP disruptions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry Luke, I don't really see it--I see lots of IP edits on stats and stuff, that is, the usual for such articles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the edit summaries (including reverts) don't suggest excessive vandalism to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - a few months edit warring over a sixth series announcement. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Drmies (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article is subject to periodic vandalism from IPs, worse than other state articles IMO. There is very little (close to none) scholarly edits from IPs, so little would be lost. A long term protection would be helpful. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism – The article is being persistently vandalized, as one can probably see from the edit history, and it is probably best if this is placing on pending changes protection, so a reviewer may check edits before they are visible to the rest of the public. Thank you. TBrandley 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, but I don't see enough vandalism to warrant protection--two this month by IP editors? Drmies (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the problem with pending changes protection, but there was over 5 within the last month and the start of this month. TBrandley 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Edit warring over the results of the AfD which determined that the article should be a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Long-term rather than indefinite semi-protection tends to be preferable since consensus can change. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent blanking, vandalism, support comments etc. Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected Pending changes seems like a useful alternative to indef semi in this case. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Excessive POV editing to the "critical reception" section. Fanboys are going into meltdown over the Hobbit's lackluster reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
    Pending-changes protected —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected Added PC for a week to start, there are both constructive edits and vandalism coming from IP editors. Monty845 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP vandalism only for a year or two. I propose a six months semi protection. Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 month. Given the spread of the vandalism, even a long initial protection of a month probably wont work, but I think it needs to be tried before going to anything longer. Please make another request if the vandalism resumes in a month. Monty845 02:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent level of IP vandalism. Briarfallen (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected 1 month. Monty845 02:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We are approaching the alleged date for this... event, and so the vandalism is increasing with the view count, to the point where reversions are being missed. I think at least it should be protected until the new year, when the date has passed. Serendipodous 09:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistant vandalism from IP-hopper. Behaviour same as an earlier blocked IP. The Banner talk 08:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. It's been protected many times before; time to indef it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Not sure if these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but 3 IPs have shown up in the last 2 hours to remove a relevant template from this article. Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Huldra (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Webclient101talk 07:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Anon vandalism is very frequent at the moment. Cawhee (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three days. -- Dianna (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Ridiculous amount of vandalism coming from 4chan's videogame board. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The attack ended some hours ago. Please re-report if I am wrong. I have rolled back to a version from November to remove remaining hidden vandalism. -- Dianna (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary pending changes: Occasional vandalism. §haun 9∞76 ༆ 03:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last unproductive edit was two weeks ago. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:31, 16 December 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. Recent history before latest semi-protection did not show enough disruption to warrant it. Protecting admin was contacted but is not providing any justification to what looks like a pre-emptive semi-protection, or perhaps (I can only speculate based on the article's talk page) an attempt to prevent one particular IP from editing, both of which are at odds with site policy, BLP or not. Please unprotect. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What I may want to add to that article is irrelevant to my request. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your dodging of the question is a good argument for keeping it protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not, and frankly, for someone who's been around for such a long time, and what's more has the nerve to reply to requests for unprotection, you seem to be fairly clueless about the process. I questioned the semi-protection of an article, and you assumed that I did that because I wanted to make a change to it, and failed to notice the existence of the editsemiprotected template. If you must know, your assumption is wrong, and even if I did want to make a change, I would argue that the nature of one change from me would be practically irrelevant to this RUP, compared to the potential impact of unprotecting such a prominent page. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, this was an extension done before the first semi elapsed, so obviously the history link I offered above is not showing any non-confirmed user activity. Still, I don't believe there was enough disruption before the first semi to justify this either, and in fact I can see good non-confirmed user activity there, as well. Some supposedly bad activity has been struck, so I cannot judge. Anyway, please unprotect and see how it goes. Thanks. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Article was originally protected for BLP violations of the shooter's brother/shooter himself/others involved and factual errors that were unsourced, along with speculation. Based on the talkpage, no reason to think that it will stop if we unprotect the page. gwickwiretalkedits 02:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Please leave this article protected for the foreseeable future. Shearonink (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, this by itself is a rather weak argument. Why not fully protect Wikipedia forever? That would insure that no violations of any policy will ever occur. Do you not see a downside? Protection is a matter of balance.
    Still, a considerable improvement over "WP:COMMONSENSE" and "not going to happen", I'll give you that. 219.79.91.100 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. I support Dennis Brown's decision to not unprotect. If the whole encyclopedia were semi-protected or if account creation were required for editing, the burden on the patrollers and administrators would be reduced quite substantially. But "anyone can edit" is one of the Five Pillars, which are not likely to change anytime soon. So in the meantime please post your suggested edits on the talk page as an edit request. I know this is a lot more inconvenient for IPs, but protecting the privacy and reputation of living people is the primary reason this protection was laid down and that issue is the most important right now. -- Dianna (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If we really have IPs wanting to edit, PC may be good here, I'm sure tons of reviewers have it watchlisted, and we can slap a big ol' Page Notice on it saying Warning: If you add unsourced information to this page it will be removed, and nobody will see it anyway. Also, I've been meaning to ask if we can apply some sort of either probation or general sanction of a 1RR/No unsourced content edits to this. gwickwiretalkedits 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While I accept Dianna's decision, I must say I am puzzled by the rationale.
    If the whole encyclopedia were semi-protected or if account creation were required for editing, the burden on the patrollers and administrators would be reduced quite substantially. But "anyone can edit" is one of the Five Pillars, which are not likely to change anytime soon.
    Although it fails to mention it explicitly, the last part points to the fact that there is benefit in not semi-protecting, which is precisely the point I'm trying to make here. And like I said, I was seeing good non-confirmed edits (or "IP" edits, as you call them) before protection.
    In any case, Dianna, I invite you to read more carefully the case above. I do not have any edits to make to that page. I am aware of the editsemiprotected template. This request for unprotection is not about me, and you should not assume that that is the case.
    Finally, I am saddened to see so much prejudice against IP editors, and lack of understanding of the protection policy:
    "could you indef (not permanent) the protection? I don't want us to have to scramble with edits from IPs that aren't sourced and are speculation" (registered users can add unsourced speculations, too, you know?)
    "it needs longer protection to insure BLP violations do not continue" (ditto, no guarantee at all, unless you fully protect)
    "Been having lots of fun there, with one IP in particular. Articles like this bring out the worst in some, and bring in self appointed experts on Wikipedia, who are usually clueless." (Issues with one IP in particular are not a good reason to semi-protect. There are other tools for that.)
    "((please indef the protection to avoid)) edit conflicts from those ((IP)) edits and having good edits being erased by IPs copying to resolve an edit conflict" (Convenience is not a valid reason for protection, let alone an indefinite one)
    219.79.90.4 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection: Change full protection to semi since the transclusion count (per this tool) is 399. Forgot to put name (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Transclusion count is not the only factor in template protection. Please contact the protecting admin, or point to where you already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Notified protected admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected, thanks. Please add it to your watchlist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please un-protect UFC 155 and UFC 156 pages to allow a page to be created. Currently they are being protected only as a loop hole to delete the page. By the time the protection is lifted data and information on the event's unique details will be lost. Thank you, 173.168.140.188 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It seems very unlikely you will be able to draft an article that overcomes the delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155. If you insist on trying, you must draft a complete article either at WP:AFC or if you register an account, in a userspace sandbox. When your draft is complete, you can request it be moved to the title, note that it will still need to overcome the reasons for deletion that won out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155. Monty845 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The current page for Alison Rosen redirects to The Adam Carolla Show (podcast). Alison has her own persistently high-ranked podcastAlison Rosen is your New Best Friend and a career/personal history apart from The Adam Carolla Show (podcast) that is being made notable by her own popular show.

    Declined The best course of action would be to draft an article about the subject either at WP:AFC or in your userspace to show that she passes The notability guidelines. Popularity of her podcasts only matters if the podcast has been the subject of substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Monty845 16:44, 17 December 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.

    Would an admin add <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 October 3}}</noinclude> to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia, which was fully protected? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an admin add <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 November 20}}</noinclude> to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155, which was fully protected? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive for a rolling archive of the last 7 days of protection requests.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=528512266"