Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FelixRosch (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 2 January 2015 (→‎Current requests for increase in protection level: Full protection request. One week only.). 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 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.

    Full protection (one week only): This is to request only one week of full protection, administrator only, to direct attention to the page upgrade discussion presently taking place on the Dyslexia at Talk page for Talk:Zad68. The major diagnostic manual, ICD-10, has been re-written and the news about Alexia being integrated in the diagnosis of Dyslexia has not yet fully gotten around. The Alexia diagnosis has been absorbed into diagnostic category for Dyslexia. Redirect has been posted for Alexia following ICD-10 integration to Dyslexia. (Re-incorporation of integrated ICD-10 categorization of R48.0 from previously separated classification.) Current version is up to date with ICD-10. The temporary protection should be used to encourage Talk discussion at the Dyslexia article in order to avoid future edit reverts, and all editors are invited to attend the upgrade discussion on Dyslexia at Talk:Zad68. This is a request for one week only of full protection for only administrator editing. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Roving IP adding hoax info to article - assertion of restart of ended TV series using none or bogus references for support. Never same IP twice. Previous target was Dan Vs. which was protected for same reason. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. 2nyte (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Promotional IP and promotional brand-new user account; I think the two are linked, but there are far too many overtly promotional edits going in right now regardless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Transfer rumours. QED237 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Persistent vandalism – Since the doge meme every time protection expires there is a new vawe of vandalism. There is a consensus that it shouls not be added to article, on talk. But no editor cares much for that. Hafspajen (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem edits would be stopped easily through semi-protection I feel, possibly indef like Doge (meme). Full protection seems overzealous. tutterMouse (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - like Doge meme -that's fine. Hafspajen (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We are seeking the SALTing of all articles on the list linked. Secondly, requesting Blacklisting of all article titles containing any element in Group 1: (wilayat/wilayah/province including both capital and lower case) combined with any element in Group 2: (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIL/ISIS/IS/Islamic State). Hopefully this is the right place to request, if not tell us where. See this link], the links to the deletion discussions below it that resulted in all titles and redirects being deleted (lots of policy based comments), and editor discussion above it for support for this action. The continued disruptive efforts to recreate deleted articles with the same or very similar titles necessitates this. Request supported by User:Spirit_of_Eagle, User:Mhhossein, and I expect User:Gregkaye Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Legacypac, rather than protect these one at a time I've asked at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist# Wilayats of ISIL if they can be added. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support protection, a declaration of Wilayat with untranslated content and/or with the use of Wikipedia's voice is a violation of NPOV. Other people's describe the territory as something different. A very similar problem was raised when Daesh proclaimed themselves as "Islamic State" but, fortunately, in this case we had designations such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to fall back on. GregKaye 11:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-Protection Constant removal of notable reviews by IP editors who disagree with the review. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:FrB.TG (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection User request.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (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.

    Not so much a reduction in protection level as much as it is a reduction in protection duration. I think what the page experienced was a short-term problem that could easily have been resolved with a shorter block duration. Cyphoidbomb said on its talk page that he didn't see any reason for an indefinite protection. ElectricBurst(Is there anything you need of me?) 09:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, This page has been protected five times in 2014 alone, including the current protection. The previous expired on 23 December and it was indeffed five days later. Also you should request the reduction from the protecting admin prior to posting here, in this case Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) kelapstick(bainuu) 13:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The message replied by Cyphoidbomb at Talk:Boomerang (TV channel) said it was fully protected and that was his answer to that level of protection - that was a false argument - it has never been fully protected (one would rarely indef an article to fully protected). We truly suspect the UPN vandal will be back, as always, within a week, once he's managed to gain a new IP address, thus semi protection is the way to go. It has been semi protected 5 times in the past with a finish date - clearly that's not working. Setting a time limit is like giving the UPN an alarm clock, he'll be back the minute it expires, and we could then miss that. Making it indef does not mean forever - it means to some unknown future date where a case for unprotection can be given (i.e. we are convinced that the UPN has ceased operations), and the page properly monitored when unprotected. In any case, if semi-protection was causing a big issue there would be a raft of {{edit semi-protected}} notes on the talk page, which there are not.Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally misunderstood what the IP user was asking on the talk page. (Psst! It was not written very coherently!) I trust Ron's judgment on this matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2015 (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.

    Fulfilled/denied 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=640670689"