Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"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.
Requests for page protection
Shortcuts

This page is for requesting that a page, file or template be protected. Please read up on 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 only 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, the protection is listed in the page history and logs with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins do not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

Note: Editors should not consider requesting page protection as a method for continuing an argument from elsewhere nor as a venue for starting a new discussion regarding article content. If a request contains excessive argument, appears to be intended to resolve a content dispute, includes personal attacks or uncivil comments, or has any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page and no action will be taken.

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


Administrator instructions


Current requests for increase in protection level

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

Kösem Sultan

Reason: High level of IP vandalism. An increase in baseless evidences.Jacob Historian (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Content dispute? deferring --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morbius (film)

Reason: Persistent unsourced additions by IPs —El Millo (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Those ought to cover it through release and its run in theatres. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

94th Academy Awards

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive editing. Multiple ips have removed a specific event from the schedule (start of final voting) for no real reason. $chnauzer 23:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaush (2nd nomination)

Reason: Persistent sockpuppetry by the same users voting multiple times after being canvassed at reddit. 2001:4455:364:A800:894F:FBF8:A5AA:921F (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twink (gay slang)

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Gaetr (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There have been no edits since March 9, I don't think an indefinite semi-protection is necessary at this time. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Castellini

Reason: Continued vandalism after previous RfPP expired redlegsfan21 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacenotwar (malware)

Reason: Users starting an edit war rather than discussing their disagreements in the talk page. This page is also linked with the personal page of a user which already has a warning due to said user writing/ editing a substantial portion of the page. This user also deleted support tickets/ issues on Github relating to this incident for the purpose of spinning the narrative, so there is a high risk that he will personally vandalize the page. This page is also related to an issue of current events which has political undertones, further increasing the chances of vandalism. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to call attention to The Gentle Sleep's POV pushing. This is the edit he's trying to lock in by protecting the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_%28malware%29&type=revision&diff=1078287148&oldid=1078224662
In a previous revision The Gentle Sleep has called it a "hate crime" which is even more POV. Please look over the revision history.
CC GhostOfDanGurney who was the first to revert these changes. 216.73.163.131 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't PoV pushing, and I noted in the talk page (where this issue should be discussed) why I changed the link to racial profiling instead. This attack targeted anyone of a specific nationality, which is by definition racial profiling per the definition from the ACLU. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Police Department

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – multiple people or sockpuppets vandalizing. Mike989 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Colombians

Reason: Deleting of legitimate sources outside official one. Merchancano (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parihar

Reason: Continuous ip vandalism Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for reduction in protection level

Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level

Sharon, Ariel

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Consistent with the target article, Ariel Sharon. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a new request with a different desired result CreecregofLife (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see any vandalism and the target page is ECP. I’m not seeing a case for reducing protection of the redirect to SP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case the redirect should be unprotected. There is just simply no reason for this redirect to be fully protected. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was protection due to reasons that you cannot see ([1]). Couretsy ping @NawlinWiki: (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neveselbert, the case you put forward doesn’t hold up - Vandalism? Consistent with the target article? Nor can you see the BLP violation, now deleted, that necessitated the protection. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notify NawlinWiki, but they appear to be inactive. I waited a day before requesting unprotection here, which was declined and archived before I had the chance to respond. So I've since requested a reduction in the protection level, to SP which would be consistent with the level for the redirect's target. I don't believe the rationale for locking the page still holds up, since the subject of the redirect has since died, voiding any possible further violation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The target page is ECP not SP. If only you were clear in your initial request - you asked for SP due to persistent vandalism, consistent with the target page. Why don’t you start again and ask for a lowering of protection to ECP without any mention of vandalism? It won’t be lowered further than that because the page falls under arbitration enforcement as it can be reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry of course, I've struck out the mention of vandalism and I apologise for not being clear in my initial request (I did mean ECP, not SP, sorry again for the confusion). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it could be lowered to ECP, but why? Is there an urgent need to do so, an article to be written? Or is the intent just to synchronize the protection levels? Lectonar (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An argument against "synchronizing" the protection levels is that the article currently has 690 watchers while the redirect has 3. Undesirable changes to the redirect by an EC user are thus much more likely to go undiscovered. Favonian (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a particularly controversial redirect, like Hitler for example. The vast majority of redirects in Redirects from sort names are not protected, let alone fully protected, like this. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't answered the basic question: why? Why does it need to be unprotected? Are you planning on turning into an article that differs from it's current target? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally wanted it unprotected to tag the redirect, which has since been done by an admin. It's still however tagged as a fully-protected redirect, which I think is unnecessary for the reasons I've given. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Graham Bell

Reason: (Requesting a second time due to initial request being archived without any decision to approve or decline.) The article was indefinitely semi-protected 12 years ago, and per WP:PPLIST, this seems like "a reasonable period has elapsed". There could either be full unprotection or pending changes protection. The latter could be a good way to see if the nationality-based disruption from over 12 years ago will resume or not, and allow passerby editors to make other kinds of changes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to initial request here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/03#Alexander Graham Bell. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles: As the administrator who protected this page indefinitely, would you like to unprotect this page or switch to pending changes protection? — Newslinger talk 06:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Michell (writer)

Unprotection: Page has been protected since 2008, the last 50 edits go back to 2015, the page protection is no longer providing a reduction in vandalism and is only prohibiting unregisted edits. Terasail[✉️] 18:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbachmann: As the administrator who protected this page indefinitely, would you like to unprotect this page? — Newslinger talk 06:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Beevers

Unprotection: Page has been protected since 2009, the last 50 edits go back to 2009, the page protection is no longer providing a reduction in vandalism and is only prohibiting unregistered users from making edits. Terasail[✉️] 18:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MBisanz: As the administrator who protected this page indefinitely, would you like to unprotect this page? — Newslinger talk 06:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pedobear

Reason: is really old Carletteyt (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While that's not a reason we can use to unprotect a page, the article is clearly less popular than it used to be, with no vandalism or disruptive edits for years. @Reaper Eternal: As the administrator who semi-protected this page indefinitely, would you like to unprotect this page? — Newslinger talk 04:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Thomas

Reason: The protection has been put into place by the same mod who polices this article and deletes any criticism to Thomas even when coming from RS. Just see how the TALK PAGE is protected.. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your transphobia is showing. It's not genuine criticism--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. The page is protected to enforce the MOS:DEADNAME guideline. The discussion at Talk:Lia Thomas indicates that there is a high chance of this guideline being violated if the page were unprotected at this time. — Newslinger talk 04:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example Article Name

Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because ....... . 192.133.249.111 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:37, 21 March 2022 (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

The Kashmir Files

In the article titled, "The Kashmir Files", a sentence in the lead says,

the film is based on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency

and I request that it be changed to,

the film is about the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus during the Kashmir Insurgency

as the source says it, "deals" with it - I asked to change the, "Kashmiri Pandits" to, "Kashmiri Hindus " because the term, "Kashmiri Pandits" in that sentence links to the, "Kashmiri Hindus " article.-116.75.78.177 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 116.75.78.177 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done This is the page for requesting edit protection, this is an edit request, which should be made on the talk page of the article to be edited. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmir Files

the movie is produced with 2 partners one is Abhishek Agarwal and Zee studios.

Only Zee Studios is coming up.

Currently it's :

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film,[2] written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. Produced by Zee Studios,[5] the film claims to be based on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency.[6] It stars Anupam Kher, Darshan Kumar, Pallavi Joshi and Mithun Chakraborty.[7] The film was theatrically released on 11 March 2022.


It shall be :

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film,[2] written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. Produced by Abhishek Agarwal and Zee Studios,[5] the film claims to be based on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits during the Kashmir Insurgency.[6] It stars Anupam Kher, Darshan Kumar, Pallavi Joshi and Mithun Chakraborty.[7] The film was theatrically released on 11 March 2022 VirtualBeast (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, VirtualBeast, this is the page to request page protection. You are requesting an edit. Edit requests should be made on the talk page of the article to be edited. In this case that would be Talk:The Kashmir Files Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of page you are requesting an edit to

Kindly unprotect this page for few time so I can add some most necessary information , there are many rajput states which were neglected in this article 2409:4043:692:1375:4678:A1BB:CA67:782B (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want the /Decrease subpage, and you will need to both provide the name of the article you want the protection lowered on and a much more convincing rationale. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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=1078318617"