Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    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.


    List of Blackpink live performances

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Re-request due to persistent addition of unsourced and/or poorly sourced materials for concert's figures by IP range (2A01:E0A:AB0:4820:0:0:0:0/64). Warning is impossible as they're using dynamic IP which changes every day hence reaching level 4 warning is impossible. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: 2A01:E0A:AB0:4820:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. from the article and Born Pink World Tour for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Master of Reality

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Content dispute. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Most of the disruptive edits are coming from IPs; ECP doesn't seem necessary yet. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To resolve the apparent contradiction above: the article's history shows that edit warring and disruption are not just recent phenomena; they have continued since the last (very short) protection on the article expired last December. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: Reviewing the history, which I did, the content dispute includes multiple extended confirmed editors on both sides. I don't think semi-protection or ECP is appropriate here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it isn't warranted, go ahead and lift it. I was looking beyond the content dispute ... there has been persistent IP disruption on this page since that last protection expired. Certainly it would be easier for the EC editors if they didn't have to worry about putting out those fires while trying to work things out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Daniel Case: Using semi-protection seems contradictory to Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes. in WP:SEMI and there's also similar language in WP:ECP. Let's try full protection as an alternative approach as suggested in Wikipedia:Protection policy § Content disputes. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rogers Plaza

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Strongly suspect WP:COI, keeps adding a store directory, indiscriminate info, and images clearly not belonging to them. See [1]. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's a single IP address editor and there's an active discussion on ANI. If anything, a block would be the first step here, but I'm going to leave that to the administrators looking into this on ANI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of centenarians

    Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism, particularly today. Bremps... 21:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @Bremps: Did you request protection for the correct article? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh! List of living centenarians Bremps... 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. List of living centenarians is semi-protected protected for 1 year due to repeated and long-term disruptive editing and vandalism. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Loki (rapper)

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 23:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the 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

    Sinéad O'Connor

    Protected in accordance with WP:BLP over a decade ago. However, this person is deceased. Does BLP policy still has to apply to this page?197.2.30.146 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends on if there are any lingering controversies, per WP:BDP. BLP protections extend to anywhere from six months to two years postmortem. I'd argue that this may be a case where unprotection could be tried. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Courcelles: as the protecting admin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure he would respond given his last activity was 3 months ago.197.2.30.146 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: In this case, it seems like Casliber should probably be considered the protecting administrator. It looks like Courcelles was restoring Casliber's semi-protection after the pending changes trial ended. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And he hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, either. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncomfortable declaring them to be "inactive" at this point since some people go on vacations that are several weeks long. Could we give them several days to respond to the ping here? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection template has changed several times over the course of the article's history, but it was protected due to vandalism, not under WP:BLP. Also, we don't lift protections made due to WP:BLP or under WP:CT/BLP automatically some period of time after a person dies. Protections are lifted following WP:UNPROTPOL. As Casliber who originally applied the protection is still active, they should be asked first. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection log on that page doesn't say anything about BLP, it is protected due to excessive vandalism. — xaosflux Talk 20:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was before CTOPS existed. Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case: Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now. Could you please clarify what policy or guideline says that? WP:PP independently allows indefinite protection of articles experiencing heavy and persistent WP:BLP violations. We should try to stick to established interpretations of policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that we don't have to choose CTOPS protection for a BLP, even when we make it indefinite. But the longer the term, the previous terms, and the more times it's previously been protected, the more admins aware of CTOPS are choosing to invoke that even if the main issue is persistent vandalism.
    Of course, since we're now in BRDP territory with this article, as noted above, this discussion is really beside the point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow the point you are trying to make, but I'm inclined to unprotect the article given the lack of disruption and WP:PP allows that once we've given Casliber the chance to respond. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, Daniel Case and Daniel Quinlan, following your dialogue and following the fact that the page was once PC configured for a year, which also occurred over a decade ago, any opinions on whether temporary pending protection could be implemented instead of complete unprotection from the get-go?197.2.30.146 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that it's been protected for so long that we can/should start with unprotection first and then ramp up as necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 as well. I really don't see any lingering controversies—"Fight the real enemy!" was years ago, and she didn't start any more of those this century. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, opting for at least trying unprotection; re-protection at need is just a click away. Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. It's been over a day since pinging Casliber who hasn't edited since 25 June 2024, and there seems to be strong consensus to try unprotection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    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


    Handled requests

    A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1234317560"