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
Line 66: Line 66:
=== [[:Hamster]] ===
=== [[:Hamster]] ===
* {{pagelinks|Hamster}}
* {{pagelinks|Hamster}}
'''Unprotection:''' It's been semiprotected for two and a half years. Could we unprotect as a test, or at least downgrade it to pending changes? At worst, the persistent vandalism will resume and make someone unprotect it, or if it doesn't resume, the unprotection will have helped. [[Special:Contributions/66.213.111.239|66.213.111.239]] ([[User talk:66.213.111.239|talk]]) 17:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
'''Unprotection:''' It's been semiprotected for two and a half years, long enough for the protecting admin to have retired except for removing notes from her talk page. Could we unprotect as a test, or at least downgrade it to pending changes? At worst, the persistent vandalism will resume and make someone unprotect it, or if it doesn't resume, the unprotection will have helped. [[Special:Contributions/66.213.111.239|66.213.111.239]] ([[User talk:66.213.111.239|talk]]) 17:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


=== [[:Sukhumi]] ===
=== [[:Sukhumi]] ===

Revision as of 17:53, 6 April 2016

"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 increase in protection level

    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.

    Hamza Yusuf

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous disruptive editing and removal of sourced content by IP. 86.158.72.75 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How can three reverts within 5 days be "not enough recent disruptive activity"?[1][2][3] 31.49.133.154 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you are joking? Please read the protection policy if you have not done so already, and kindly have a look at the edit-history of WWE Women's Championship (2016–present), as an example . That is vandalism which warrants protection...because it is disruptive. Lectonar (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No not joking at all, are you saying that continously removing sourced content is not vandalism and/or disruptive editing? 31.49.133.154 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every vandalism leads to a page being protected...neither does every disruptive edit. Lectonar (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every, no, but what about three by from multiple users? 31.49.133.154 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nancy Reagan

    Renew pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Coffee, who initiated the protection a month ago, is inactive at the moment. I contacted the administrator for extension who upgraded the protection but then downgraded it. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Lectonar (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Power

    Semi-protection: An IP is changing the lead to say Black Power is a "form of racism" without changing the reference which defines the concept as a "political slogan". The IP is either trolling or is pushing a white supremacy line. At any rate, there is edit warring without discussion. The page history shows not much activity, but I think all IP edits this year have been reverted. The last semi (diff) was for two weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. And I will watchlist, and if that becomes a pattern, will apply pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Extended confirmed editors

    Indefinite full protection: This redirect is linked in functions of Special:ListUsers. (For reference, please see Wikipedia:MOVP, a similar redirect that was fully protected indefinitely since it is used in a "MediaWiki:" page. Since all "Special:" pages are system functions, changes to this redirect could break a system function, which, in this case, is directing users to the right place when clicking blue "extended confirmed user" links that appear at Special:ListUsers in searches.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamid Askari (singer)

    Create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Wgolf (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add-might as well RPP Hamid Askari, yeah last time it was created was in December, but given the number of times it has been. Wgolf (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sierra Academy of Aeronautics

    Permanent Full Protection: Posting a request on behalf of Castlesierra (talk · contribs), who made a request at the Help Desk for this article to be locked down (here). They indicate that users and former employees are posting damaging information at the article, and that that information could harm the organization. A spate of vandalism last week resulted in a full protection, which expired this morning. There have been no further shenanigans since, but the previous bout was severe enough to require revisions to be deleted - direct accusations against living persons, legal threats, and so forth. Fun for everyone. I make no recommendation as such, and have invited Castlesierra to comment (and have ignored their username, for the moment). I understand that permanent full protection is a non-starter, but that is how the original request is phrased, and thus is the starting point for this request. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    CommonsDelinker User and Talk pages

    Permanent fully protection: Since this page was updated to inform properly its tasks (removing links to files deleted at Commons), several user left messages to the bot talk page (and also the User page was vandalized), then, reverted by Denniss, Me, and others. As this user is a bot, leaving messages does not make sense, and the Talk Page redirects to the User page, therefore, I suggest the fully protection to all these pages in order to avoid editing the informative message about the bot (as well the vandalism). Amitie 10g (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Humza Arshad

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Continuous disruptive editing by IPs and anonymous users. 31.49.133.154 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    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.

    Hamster

    Unprotection: It's been semiprotected for two and a half years, long enough for the protecting admin to have retired except for removing notes from her talk page. Could we unprotect as a test, or at least downgrade it to pending changes? At worst, the persistent vandalism will resume and make someone unprotect it, or if it doesn't resume, the unprotection will have helped. 66.213.111.239 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sukhumi

    Unprotection: remove the protection not the extended confirmed users. --BasBibi (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you want the protection to be lifted? Lectonar (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected in view of recent edit history. Favonian (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests
    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.

    Handled requests

    A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=713941600"