Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bot clerking, 39 pending requests remain. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
No edit summary
Line 202: Line 202:
* {{pagelinks|1=Viktor Prokopenya}}
* {{pagelinks|1=Viktor Prokopenya}}
'''Temporary full protection:''' Persistent disruptive editing, persistent vandalism – Article has been subject to recent edit warring. Requesting full protection to maintain sensible edits and stop an edit war. [[User:OlgaSvetlova|OlgaSvetlova]] ([[User talk:OlgaSvetlova|talk]]) 07:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
'''Temporary full protection:''' Persistent disruptive editing, persistent vandalism – Article has been subject to recent edit warring. Requesting full protection to maintain sensible edits and stop an edit war. [[User:OlgaSvetlova|OlgaSvetlova]] ([[User talk:OlgaSvetlova|talk]]) 07:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

=== [[:Larry Sanger]] ===
* {{pagelinks|1=Larry Sanger}}
'''Full protection:''' Persistent bias misleading content. For example, see "and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography..."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&oldid=903676387] I expect the edit history to be '''deleted'''. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 08:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


== Current requests for reduction in protection level ==
== Current requests for reduction in protection level ==

Revision as of 08:28, 27 June 2019

"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

    Claudia Sheinbaum

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IP editors keep insisting that Sheinbaum's title should be "governor" instead of "mayor". I have explained multiple times in the edit summaries, and on the IPs' talk pages, that English RS translate her title "jefe de gobierno", as "mayor". signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tejasvi Surya

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Protection lapsed and IP vandalism re-started again; ultimately, this BLP has a controversial section which IPs attack. Britishfinance (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    123Movies

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This page clocks over 10,000 page views because derivatives of its name are used by other illegal movies sites (but are unrelated to it); past protection has lapsed but we are back to non-stop attempts by IP/new users, to insert spam links to other illegal sites into the article. . Britishfinance (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Odelay

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent disruption, genre warring from multiple IPs from Maryland. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Eurovision Song Contest 2020

    Temporary semi-protection: - IP disruption as always.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ishaq Dar

    Indefinite extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Continuous disruption, maybe affiliated with the subject, removing neutral information. They continue to push their point. As his case is pending so I suggest protect it for indefinite period. Störm (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Password (film)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – I don't know why to many ip address doing disruptive edit , Even, this article already adding Controversy. i think need to protect for this article few days. NahalAhmed (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of common misconceptions

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Current revert warring involving IPs, no consensus reached on talk page. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 11:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a blatant attempt by Waddie96 to get his/her preferred version protected by preventing IPs from editing. Look at the article history and the four criteria for adding items to the article. There is no vandalism, and in fact there is a violation of a long-standing consensus for the article by Waddie96. Waddie96 has just as much obligation to change consensus on talk as others do to maintain consensus. There should be either no protection or full protection. Thanks. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @75.191.40.148: Please quote the consensus you've mentioned above... {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Open an edit window anywhere in the article and you'll see a banner at the top of the page so big you can see it from 20 feet away, and it has a big red stop sign and the words "READ THIS FIRST: Criteria for entries to this list" followed by "an item added to the list must at least fulfill the following", followed by the four criteria for inclusion of an item in the article. That banner was added by an administrator after the consensus was reached. Most people who bother to look and want to follow consensus can't miss it. Good luck finding it, and let us know if it's not there when you look. If you want to find the discussion of the consensus, you can find it in the archives, but again you have to be willing to find it. It goes back quite a few years, and a consensus does not expire unless it is changed by another consensus discussion. There's a very good reason the four criteria were established. The article has a long, ugly history of everyone and his brother adding their favorite misconception that most people never heard of, to the point that the article was massively bloated with crap (e.g., misconception that Jews can only have sex through a hole in the sheet; misconception that a duck's quack doesn't echo; etc. etc. etc., none of which were sourced to be common misconception). The article is still a crap magnet, but better than it was years ago. If you want to make an exception to the existing consensus (the four inclusion criteria), you must discuss on the talk page and wait for consensus. That's the way it works around here. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pokémon (anime)

    Indefinite semi-protection: Long-term, persistent vandalism and disruption. Both articles of the franchise and video game series are semi-protected indefinitely, with this article having a much messier protection log history than the latter. QuestFour (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dog the Bounty Hunter

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent unsourced death claims. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Duane Chapman

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Persistent unsourced death claims. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Axl Rose

    Pending changes. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dental extraction

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Beth Chapman

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhaka

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing and vandalism. Addition of totally unsourced information and pictures that do not relate to the article at all. Kindlyanswer (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Håkon Wium Lie

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Request full protection for a few days to force content dispute onto talk page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Darling Foundry

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of linkfarm of over 120 refs (over 20K of material) that lead back to the article subject. IP User notified but keeps at it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    21 Bridges

    Semi-protection: Constant removal of sourced material. TropicAces (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

    Deez Nuts (politician)

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism since being unprotected in March. Anne drew (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kalvin Phillips

    Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Adam9007 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2019 FIFA Women's World Cup

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Several IPs adding disruptive statements/vandalism. This is a high-profile current event so should already have semi-protection at a minimum. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of the oldest living people

    Indefinite Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism that takes the form of death hoaxes or blatantly unwarranted inclusions, and sometimes page blanking. The death hoaxes are serious WP:BLP violations. This article has been semi-protected for a period of months many times, but once it runs out this same vandalism reoccurs every time. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Smile PreCure!

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constantly under attack from trolling IPs and sockpuppets. Please protect for one month or longer. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Suite PreCure

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same issue as the Smile PreCure! article. Article is constantly smeared by a sockpuppet and trolling IPs. Please also protect this for at least a month. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rising of the Shield Hero

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – IPs keep adding in unsourced info; either that, or the article was constantly smeared. Please protect for a month. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kerstin

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Repeated addition of non-notable individual. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Krépin Diatta

    Temporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Out of hand disruption and vandalism. Semi-protection acceptable as well if not extended. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fresh Pretty Cure!

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same issue as the other Precure articles above. Please protect for one month. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Futari wa Pretty Cure

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Same issue as the other Precure articles above. Please protect for one month. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Day After

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated vandalism changing fictional chronology to 1989 from 1983. AldezD (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurricane Florence

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. B dash (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Gotse Delchev

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Money in the Bank (2019)

    Semi-protection: Unsourced changes by IP editors. StaticVapor message me! 04:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Drew McIntyre

    Semi-protection: Unsourced changes and vandalism by IP editors. Page has been protected three times in the last 12 months. StaticVapor message me! 04:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    EventCity

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated efforts by SPAs to add promotional content and remove sourced content. PamD 05:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Viktor Prokopenya

    Temporary full protection: Persistent disruptive editing, persistent vandalism – Article has been subject to recent edit warring. Requesting full protection to maintain sensible edits and stop an edit war. OlgaSvetlova (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Sanger

    Full protection: Persistent bias misleading content. For example, see "and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography..."[1] I expect the edit history to be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2019 (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.

    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.

    Shortcuts

    Smadar Lavie

    Reason: Semiprotected in 2011 due to some kind of trial. I can't find anything that indicates a trial is ongoing into the present day. William Graham talk 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It was semi-protected due to the end of the CRASHlock trial. See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3 for more details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I read those links and I'm still confused. So consider this  Request withdrawn? William Graham talk 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to clarify. The article was placed under CRASHlock as a result of the initial trial of it back in 2009-11. After the trial was forcibly terminated by RfC months after it was supposed to end, the semi-protection was put in place to replace it. Odds are good that there may be a case for unprotection at this time, after almost 13 years. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pallywood

    Reason: The protection is not needed, because it protects a lie, while branding any counterargument "a conspiracy" 2001:56A:F282:9E00:E570:CFE4:6CF2:502E (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done Clearly, protection is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Infobox time zone UTC

    I think we should unlock this template on 1 August this year because I think Primefac has accidentally locked this template because I didn’t know that I used edit warring so I’m really sorry that I used edit warring when I put my previous changes down and I promise I will not use edit warring again when I put my changes down next time. Lachlb (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Have you discussed this with the protecting administrator? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I left the protecting administrator a note regarding why we should unlock the template and I have also left a message on the talk page of the template regarding this issue. Lachlb (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    DeviantART

    Unprotection: No need to protect this redirect. 2001:16A2:54AD:4600:34BC:7D96:9104:EE19 (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Have you discussed this with the protecting administrator? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malcolmxl5: NawlinWiki's last admin action was in 2017. It's not even marked {{R fully protected}} and was protected in in 2008. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing and friends

    Unprotection: I am requesting that the move protection be removed from these pages. These pages are currently redirects. I am requesting these pages have their move protection so that I, as a page mover, can move several subpages in one go from their respective "Wikipedia:Reference desk archive" counterparts in one go in an effort to marry the subpages with the current names of their appropriate parent pages. Unless the seven pages I'm requesting having their protection removed can be moved away from their current titles temporarily, they block the ability to move the subpages in one go. (The protecting administrator, RockMFR, has not edited in over three months; so, at this point, I have yet to contact them. However, they were pinged when I linked their user page in the previous sentence.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to have already been unprotected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cyberbot I is wrong. The pages are still move protected as of this moment. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2019 (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.
    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.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    Israel–Hamas war

    Change "Since the start of the Israeli operation, more than 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed,[86] including over 15,000 children and 10,000 women.[87][88]" to "Since the start of the Israeli operation, nearly 35,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed,[86] including over 7,000 children and nearly 5,000 women.[87][88]." This is based on the data recently revised by the UN, accessible here: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-reported-impact-day-215. ConDissenter (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there another place to request this change? The talk page for Israel-Hamas war is restricted as well. The current source for casualty data is palinfo.com, which describes itself by saying it "does not lay any claim to neutrality for it blatantly sides with the oppressed Palestinian people." https://english.palinfo.com/about-us/. Recognizing that reliable sources do not need to have a neutral POV, why should we use this as a source rather than a less biased source like the United Nations? ConDissenter (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ConDissenter Please go check Talk:Israel–Hamas war for earlier discussions and to see why your request is unlikely to succeed. FYI, the lower numbers refer not to the killed overall but to the killed who have additionally been identified by name. Besides, all the numbers are sourced to Gaza MoH anyway. — kashmīrī TALK 09:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply, Kashmiri. I recognize the data is all coming from the same place. (I've tried to access but can't find a reliable site for the Gaza Health Ministry to find the data directly, so I assume the UN is accurately presenting the data.) I agree it hasn't changed the total number killed which is why I didn't suggest a change to that -- beyond fixing the "more than" to "nearly" 35,000. But I don't see any basis for keeping outdated numbers on women and children. The old ratio was 72% and the new ratio was 52%. The talk page suggests we need to wait for more RS, but at this point there are plenty:
    https://www.npr.org/2024/05/15/1251265727/un-gaza-death-toll-women-children
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam/index.html
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-women-children-death-toll-1.7203167
    Is there any way to flag this for the editors of that page, even on the Talk page? ConDissenter (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{Pagelinks}} template and then the reason. It looks like this: Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) your request here. ~~~~

    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=903684230"