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 Oshwah (talk | contribs) at 05:26, 15 February 2019 (→‎Daniel Brandt: There, now it should read better...). 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.

    Shortcuts

    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.


    Thangalaan

    Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The edit-warring concerning the box office gross has started up again. Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean-Pierre Blanchard

    Temporary pending changes protection: Persistent Vandalism. Vandalism from multiple IPs/Accounts Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Po Leung Kuk Ngan Po Ling College

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. Vandalism altering school to include information about facility in Nigeria Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OtuNwachinemere

    Indefinite full protection: Deceased user, please protect the local user page per policy. Regards, Aafi (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Modern (political party)

    Reason: High level of IP WP:CRV edits. Brat Forelli🦊 09:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fromis 9

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing. As previous attempts at warning and blocking the disruptive user seemed futile, and this is the only affected page, the least we can do is have the pending changes protection to protect against the user's constant disruptive editing, while still allowing for constructive edits. Chyx1095 (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Still, we don't protect a page when there's essentially one user disrupting. The user has been given much rope over the last days, and we can easily escalate the blocks. I would use individual messages to adress them, though, not templates. On the positive side, they seem to be slowly learning. Perhaps they will adapt, slowly. Lectonar (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gua sha

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Dynamic IP editor POV-pushing/deleting sourced content. Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: warned user Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Effeminacy

    Temporary full protection: Persistent poorly explained changes without discussion. Should be discussed. Request about 36 hour lock. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I warned the edit warrior, who is ripe for a block but was not waned Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Rock

    Semi-protection: Repeated attempts to add that the artist is Grammy award winning to the first sentence of the article by IP editors. This is not done per WP: PUFF. You'll notice articles like Beyonce do not lead with "Grammy award winning". StaticVapor message me! 21:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @STATicVapor: Though that may be the case, I think it'd be appropriate to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (like Beyonce's article). I personally don't see a need to protect the page for this reason, just a need to mention the Grammy somewhere in the lead (but not the first sentence). Airplaneman ✈ 21:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mark Dice

    Extended confirmed as SP has not stopped the disruption. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm involved here, but I was also about to come and request this as a WP:AC/DS under either AP2, PS, or BLP (BLP probably fits best, imo, but any works.) He's continuing his Twitter campaign, has a 5 minute YouTube video, and now the Washington Times is all but advertising it as well. Quite frankly, based on sheer numbers, we can't deal with this. We normally don't like protecting talk pages, but I think under discretionary sanctions it would be within an uninvolved admins remit. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Enigmamsg 04:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Palestine Solidarity Movement

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: 30/500, WP:ARBPIA enforcement. 2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Samsara 02:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Greater Israel

    Indefinite long-term extended protection: Arbitration enforcement – This article that is related to Arab–Israeli conflict. ---2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:60A8:58E5:34BD:8901 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Since I've made an edit, it's best that someone else assesses this. Samsara 02:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbia University

    Permanent semi-protection: Persistent Edit warring and vandalism. This level-5 vital article is semi protected almost every week for a period of 1 week, twice in January for vandalism and 3RR. Due to the name recognition, it is subject to consistent vandalism from trolls and competing institutions. Disputed contents are added and warred regularly. It's sister college's page is already locked due to vandalism so I am requesting permanent semi-protection as it is already classified as a good article. (Nochorus (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Someone look it over and see if you agree. Can't go with indef. Not yet. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the solution here is okay but maybe increasing the semi-protection till April will be helpful. There seems to be a lot of vandalism from IPs and users getting banned for wikipuffery. But they rise up during admission seasons anyway. I do think semi-pretoection till April is better as most rejected candidates will stop caring around then. And people who don’t care about facts or reasoing will find ways to get around it anyway and WP community can take care of it then.(TF Munat (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
    Done Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

    Indefinite extended confirmed: Arbitration enforcement. Banana19208 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined not part of the conflict reasonably construed. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oru Adaar Love

    Temporary semi-protection: Film has just been released and has been subject to a lot of promo edits and fancruft in the past. That rubbish has started again. I guess a week or so of semi would do it. Sitush (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. LG-Gunther :  Talk  05:16, 15 February 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

    Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024

    Reason: Wide consensus is good. ND61F (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ND61F, users with less than 500 edits and 30 days of experience can't engage in that topic area unless they're simply making edit requests. "Wide consensus" on that page move discussion isn't possible, at least not in the way you seem to be thinking. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge the existing guidelines regarding user participation in specific topic areas based on edit count and experience. While I respect these restrictions, I believe that fostering a more inclusive environment could benefit our community. ND61F (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I respect your opinion, although I have to say that there's no point requesting this because the page's protection level isn't going to be decreased to allow for participation in that discussion by non-extended confirmed editors; the guidelines are quite strict with regards to contentious topic areas. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ND61F: ArbCom wouldn't have imposed the 500/30 restriction unless every lesser method to try and kerb the disruption was failing or had already failed. And the fact that a fifth ARBPIA case was recently spitballed by ArbCom should tell you that the 500/30 restrictions are themselves failing to kerb the disruption in this very emotionally-charged ethno-political topic area. That is not an argument to ignore the restrictions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Brandt

    While page protection, by policy, is to used in a reactive measure and to stop disruption that's currently in progress and occurring at a rate that justifies its application, there are rare situations and circumstances where applying page protection outside of this realm is legitimate, justifiable, and beneficial to the project given the circumstances involved. Given this discussion and the arguments and input given as a whole, there's an overwhelming consensus by the participants that the semi protection applied to the article by WJBScribe was for reasons that fell into one of those rare circumstances where its use outside the realm of being reactionary was appropriate and warranted, and that the semi protection currently applied to the article should not be removed. Hence, I am closing this discussion and declining the request for unprotection and due to the consensus reached. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unprotection: As of the time of this posting,

    • The article receives about 22 daily views
    • The article is watched by 250 editors

    Samsara 15:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Can of worms time. Unless we are seeing legitimate edit requests, I'm disinclined. Too much history and disruption to take the risk. Further thoughts appreciated. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the discussion on WJB's talk and while I see Samsara's point, I'm inclined to agree with WJB's protection. Enigmamsg 20:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I still remember the times :)....no unprotection imho. Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do too (I even created the Wikipedia Review article) and yes this should definitely remain semi protected. Fish+Karate 10:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A note that if anyone is looking for the old article the deleted history is at Daniel Brandt (activist). Fish+Karate 10:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no vandalism on article or in its history so their should not be protection Abote2 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Abote2: That is because the subject of the article is not what led to the protection in the first place...have a look at the permalinks provided above. Lectonar (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The musician himself isn't actually the problem — but unfortunately he happens to share the same name as somebody else who comes trailing an extremely problematic history, and certain people are very likely to try to hijack this article given half of one per cent of a chance to try. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. The amount of disruption over the former subject is staggering. AfD's, ArbCom, admin's driven off Wikipedia. Probably the most damaging series of events in Wikipedia's history. Most of its been hidden. But if you search in the Wikipedia namespace for this name, you'll find enough to curl your hair. And yes, that legacy is the past disruption that justifies create protecting that page for this long and semi protecting that page now. That's why so many people still watch that page more than a decade later. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no evidence that this will continue. And if we keep it at semi, we'll likely never know and may be keeping an innocuous article under an iron dome. With PC1, at least we'll know whether there is a problem. Samsara 02:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish we had something like a ping|admin.... let's hear some more opinions, folks. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just post a notice about this discussion on the article talk page. That would be a place to start. And if there are a gazillion watchers, we should have a good discussion-- or crickets. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In so far as the possibility of disruption goes, there has already been a checkuser block because of a comment on the talk page. This article is a powder keg. Having said that, I have placed notice of this discussion here. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni and Risker: Or did I just strike a match? Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting with disappointment that @Samsara: opened this discussion seeking to overturn my protection of the article without (a) notifying me by ping or on my talkpage and (b) without setting out the full explanation I had given for the protection on my talkpage. The reasons given in this unprotection request fail to mention the problematic history of this page and could have had an unfortunate result if those responding to it had been newer users who were not been aware of that history. For ease of reference, I reproduce the central part my explanation for the protection (thank you @Dlohcierekim: for linking to the discussion):
      "I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians)."
      I stand by the protection, especially in light of the incident on the talkpage, and believe it would be reckless to unprotect. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you acknowledge that the more discussion this takes, the worse it's likely to get, and that if you had simply never protected the article, it might still happily be sitting there, just as it did for the first 37 hours? Samsara 16:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template talk:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia

    Unprotection: This is Admin only which is getting in the way of correcting the page per the decision to move the parent page to North Macadonia (see that talkpage). Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. The page has never been protected. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Languages of the Republic of Macedonia

    Unprotection: Per [1] and the fact the main page for the topic was moved to North Macadonia this is inappropriately protected so only admins can edit or move it. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait for BrownHairedGirl to respond. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Distefano

    Unprotection: Create a redirect for Paw Patrol actor. Banana19208 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Banana19208 is now blocked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 15 February 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


    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=883401206"