Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 21 May 2017 (→‎Jordan: Declined unprotection). 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.

    Example

    Temporary semi-protection:

    File:Katy Perry - Witness (Official Album Cover).png

    Indefinite full protection: Requesting for a block of this file, per the Protection Policy, as user seems to have reverted to their owning of their own preferred upload of the image, which they previously displayed at File:Green Light (Official Single Cover) by Lorde.png, which did receive a protection. And per {{Duck}}, it's likely to happen once again. Sorry if this is wrong page; did not see a request for file upload protection under the TW tab!. livelikemusic talk! 13:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. And ask for a {{whale}} because the files look exactly the same to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Liar

    Semi-protection: High level of IP cruft and fan nonsense for newly released single. Abi-Maria (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. There are too many good IP edits and not many overtly disruptive edits. Woody (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

    Temporary semi-protection: Someone has been repeatedly attempting to remove Donald Trump's name as a client. Don't really know why. I was surprised that an article on Gizmodo investigated this. Can you temporarily semi-protect the page? Thanks. --Smghz (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Katietalk 02:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Preakness Stakes

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Race is in about an hour and the vandals are already hitting the article, 24 hours semi, please. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Katietalk 02:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    John R. Velazquez

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Jockey in big horse race today, vandals hitting by altering data, BLP concerns. 24 hours should be enough. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Katietalk 02:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Pletcher

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Big horse race for this trainer today, vandals hitting with BLP errors, deliberately introducing false data. 24 hours should do . Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Katietalk 02:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Getzlaf

    Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations. WNYY98 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Katietalk 02:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick and Morty (season 3)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Can we maybe get a couple month duration or something? Protection expired and anonymous editors immediately started trying to insert faulty information again. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katietalk 02:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sidecar

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Katietalk 02:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian McKnight

    Semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Addition of defamatory content by block-evading user. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 22:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Widr. Katietalk 02:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Tyson

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Unconstructive edit rate too high for PC with visibility. WNYY98 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katietalk 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Gilbert (surname)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – same editors as Sidecar. WNYY98 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Katietalk 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary, Queen of Scots

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Long protection log. Just came off a protection and vandalism has quickly resumed. WNYY98 (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Today's spree was one IP, so let's see if we can get by with PC first. Katietalk 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Swish Swish

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent additions of unsourced material particularly by IP users. Jennica✿ / talk 00:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katietalk 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Franklin (TV series)

    Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – Persistent addition of unsourced or disruptive content. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Katietalk 02:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivanka Trump

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – highly visible, just came off ECP and already being vandalized. WNYY98 (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Alexwho314

    Semi-protection: Person acting from many IPs posted some of my personal information on my page and is re-adding it when I remove it. Alexwho314 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Please consider if you also want to request oversight. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator Opabinia regalis. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2017 (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.

    Jordan

    Unprotection: unnecessary, the article had not been subject to any type of disruptive editing. --Makeandtoss (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ymblanter: The country of Jordan is older than the conflict. Jordan is a high level article and it is not "relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict". Egypt, for example, is not under this protection. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree and believe this is irrelevant for the discussion, but another administrator will take the decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How is exactly is it irrelevant? Egypt and Jordan held identical roles in the conflict. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps no one ever requested Egypt be protected, which is the key element in the Arb Com policy. If somebody requests protection, the article receives protection. If no one requests protection, it remains unprotected. As mentioned below, you might want to argue that point directly to Arb Com for clarification. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am posting here in response to a request from Makeandtoss on my talk page. I protected Jordan per a request yesterday, and did it by-the-book according to clarifications I had recently received regarding ArbCom decision Palestine-Israel articles. If another admin disagrees, they have the option of changing the protection. I have had no participation or vested interest in Arb Com's case, but I suggest that if Makeandtoss feels Jordon should not be part of the Arb Com decision, then he should address this to Arb Com directly. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Maile66 and Ymblanter: Do you think it would be useful to have a discussion that comes up with some criteria for "broadly interpreted"? The United States has repeatedly involved itself in the conflict. Is Foreign policy of the United States eligible for ECP? --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely have some criteria. As is, it depends on a judgement call from any admin, regardless of whether or not that admin has knowledge of the said conflict. Or if an admin has extensive knowledge of the conflict, it's still currently vague as to the interpretation. Criteria would be very helpful. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maile66: Where would you recommend this discussion take place? At WP:AN, Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection, or somewhere else? --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just ask ArbCom for clarification, this is their decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible for this to happen where it can become an amendment to the Arb Com decision? I just think it's a good idea to have the clarification officially attached to the Arb Com decision. Then the decision could be posted on WT:RPP. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter and Maile66: I will email Arbcom, pointing to this thread, and asking if they want to get involved. Usually they leave such details to the hoi polloi. --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the admin who applied ECP to Jordan named WP:ARBPIA3 in their edit summary, they must have thought that their protection was justified by Arbcom authority. So User:Maile66's protection should be appealable at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I don't see a need to ask Arbcom directly what to do. Also I don't see a need for a specific set of rules for when to protect. Personally, I wouldn't protect automatically, but I would impose ECP it if there seemed to be a justification. In case of doubt in a particular case, the consensus of admins at AE ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston I agree with you re: justification but Arbcom has taken away admin discretion in this area. --NeilN talk to me 17:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NeilN has now opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (2014) which might help to answer these questions. This is not trying to get rules for when ECP should be applied, but only how to ask for restrictions to be undone. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: That was done yesterday with American Politics articles in mind but it's applicable to all DS restrictions. Arbcom has indicated they're discussing and deciding what to do for the issues raised here. --NeilN talk to me 18:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - Unprotection is declined, since the protection appears to have the authority of discretionary sanctions. It can't be lifted without the consent of User:Maile66 unless you get consensus at a place like WP:AE. The above discussion suggests ways you could appeal the protection if you believe it is unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Tmbox

    Indefinite template protection: High-risk template – To allow template editors to edit. Fully protected since 2008. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    2 million transclusions is a lot. On the other hand, I don't think we've had many problems with changing full prot->template prot even on such high use templates. Opinions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't think that's necessary, since the template just calls a Lua module (which is also fully protected) and shouldn't need editing. I think it would be better to lower the protection of the module, since it's harder to break things in the Scribunto editor. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say, if it's not broken, don't fix it. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd disagree, considering that Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors is part of the protection policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If Template:Navbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) does not cause the sky to fall with just template protection, this one should be no worse. Murph9000 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus here. PP stipulates that no more protection should be used than needed and full protection is not needed when template editor protection is not problematic. Regards SoWhy 08:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again, this has been discussed with a conclusion that we shouldn't handle unprotection requests with no rationale beyond the philosophical. If you disagree, you're welcome to handle the dozens of requests we're likely to get en-masse from the couple editors interested in making sure protection levels in the template space are "perfect". This was an actual problem in the past, not some imagined potential issue. Yes, in an ideal world, everything would have the ideal protection level. This is not an ideal world. There are resource constraints. We have few active admins. Why are we wasting what resources we do have discussing these sorts of requests over-and-over when they yield zero tangible benefit to the encyclopedia? ~ Rob13Talk 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just accept or decline each request and ask people to avoid mass nominations. "Don't need" is not a strong argument against anything, while "oy, too many requests at once!" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done I'm going to decline this based on the above discussion, plus the fact that a template editor did not make the request. I'd find it much more compelling if a TE asked for the change, but this seems to be changing it for the sake of change. Katietalk 02:49, 21 May 2017 (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=781418041"