Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:03, 4 May 2005 view sourceBrokenSegue (talk | contribs)Administrators13,401 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:17, 30 December 2024 view source Cyberbot I (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors1,718,201 edits Clerking main page and moving requests to appropriate subpages.Tag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{noadminbacklog}}<!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically.--><noinclude><!-- Please put protection templates *inside* the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{Short description|Wikimedia noticeboard for requesting protection of pages}}{{/Header}}{{Floating link|class=sysop-show|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|1=vandalism|action=edit|small=yes|expiry=}}}}<!-- Put interwikis at the Wikidata entry and categories in /Header instead of this page -->
{{Shortcut|] or ]}}
__FORCETOC__</noinclude><!-- Do not hide or modify this, a bot named "Cyberbot I" will manage it automatically-->
This page is for requesting that a page or image be '''protected''' or '''unprotected'''.
<!-- DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE. The formatting is enforced by Cyberbot. To make changes, please contact Cyberpower678. -->


<!-- Please copy the following example code to add a new entry at the bottom of the correct subpage:
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult ] for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.
=== ] ===
* {{pagelinks|Example}} ~~~~
-->


== Current ] in protection level ==
After a page has been protected, it is listed on ] with a short description of ten words or fewer indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should taked place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button protect}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Increase}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current ] in protection level ==
When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at ] (or lack thereof).
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button unprotect}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Decrease}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current ] to a protected page ==
Please remove requests once they have been fulfilled or withdrawn.
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Button edit}}{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Edit}}
<!-- DO NOT PUT NEW REQUESTS HERE. GO TO THE SUBPAGE ABOVE -->


== Current requests == == Handled requests ==
''A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at ].''
:''Please place new requests '''at the top.'''''
<!-- Please only edit below this line. -->


=== ] ===

A user who was banned for 48 hours for excessive violations of 3RR rule, impersonating an admin and then getting around his block by returning on a new IP address is now back to reverting ] to a version that he is the only supporter of after it has been made clear that 15 or more different editors disagree with it. ] 11:25, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

:DreamGuy was also blocked for violation of the 3RR. The original edit that DreamGuy did not agree with was the removeal of the term ¨terrorist¨ in a wholesale manner. It now says that he was convincted of terrorist acts by the US, which is more correct. Terrorist is a word to avoid as seen in ]. I have tried discussing issues with DreamGuy, but he simply removes my comments on his talk page wholesale, just like he reverts my articles wholesale. I have asked him on several times to discuss the issue both on the discussion page or his talk page, but he refuses to. ] 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::Anon user was actually asked by multiple editors to discuss the issue on the talk page long back but only just now decided to in order to make this claim here. Numerous editors reverted his statements and told him on his talk page and in edit comments to knock it off or discuss it on the talk page. You can see on my talk page where he first threatened to ban me and then falsely claimed I was blocked, leading to him being banned for impersonating an admin. His recent edits have been more of the same threats of blocking and claims that I was violating policy when it was in fact himself who is repeatedly breaking rules. ] 11:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

:::I did not threaten you with a ban. I warned you that your actions may get blocked and, true to my prediction, you were blocked. Furthermore, I was never blocked for pretending to be an admin since I never claimed to be an admin. ] 11:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::::You said straight out that I was now blocked and was not allowed to edit, when in fact I had not been and you were just lying to try to scam me into not reverting your POV change. You were in the process of being blocked for that but got blocked for excessive 3rr rules before that happened. ] 12:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's protected now, but could we PLEASE have the page protected as it was in the consensus version and not the version as being pushed by the anon user (who has previously made edits to pages calling terrorist "martyrs")? It's bad enough that he's impersonated an admin, made false claims, and got around a block termporarily by switching to a different IP address, but if it stays protected in his version he will have won another victory against the editors who play by the rules and follow consensus. ] 12:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

:I feel the major reason why DreamGuy refuses to negotiate is simply because he does want his block for his 3RR violation to be for nothing. I think any fair person reading both the current version and the version previous will agree that my version is more NPOV.] 12:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::All the people that reverted your edits last time around would strongly disagree, but there's no need to argue it here as that's what the talk page is for. ] 12:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

see ] ]] 01:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===

{{User|Hipi Zhdripi}} wants the Kosovo article to focus on ] and characterize Kosovo as a ] ], while {{User|Nikola Smolenski}}, {{User|Pokrajac}} and {{User|Ninam}} want to characterize it as a province of ] currently under the administration of the ]. They have two threads going and revert back and forth. Third party edits &mdash; mine &mdash; are getting lost in the reverts; I've had to apply the same edits (table formatting not related to the disputant's POVs) to both versions. ] has created a POV-Fork from a redirect for the other view &mdash; ] &mdash; which the others are not buying. Parties need to talk and the fork redirected again. &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

: Another POV-Fork: ]. &mdash;&nbsp;] 17:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

::I protected them all. This is pathetic- also aren't the forks in violation of GFDL? ]] 17:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks. ] && ] should probably be redirects to ]. I'm not sure about your license question, but the forks are obviously a bad idea. &mdash;&nbsp;] 17:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

=== Unprotect ] ===

Please, uprotect this article and make redirect to ], or just delete this page, because there is no Republic of Kosovo. :) --] 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
===]===
<s>Since it's supposed to be added to protected pages (to protect against article recreation), it should also be protected.</s> --] 00:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:I don't follow your logic. ] is supposed to be added to protected pages but it isn't protected. Do you think people will recreate the article on the template? ]] 00:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
::Yes. --] 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:::(Of course, if even ] does not need protection, this one might not need it. Forget about this request. --] 01:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC))

===Unprotect ]===
There's no protection template, and no mention on talk of why it was protected. --] (]) 19:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

:Done. ] ] 19:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===Unprotect ]===
We may have a resolution to the Marxism/Matrix dispute. ] 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
:Done. ]] 16:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===
] persists in reverting a link on the abortion entry. It's a pro-life link to Bible verses on abortion in the external links section. He has broken the 3 revert rule. 12:14am, PST, May 1.
: How could he be breaking the 3RR? He has only made four reverts in the past four days, though admittedly the last three were in the space of less than one hour (which is permitted, though I think it's a bit ]). Well I had a look and it seems that you are having a bit of a ding-dong there, but it's probably better if you just have a bit of a chat instead of reverting one another. I don't think it's at a stage that requires protection yet. --]|] 13:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

{{User|Big hurt}} only reverted ] 5 times, but as a result of his persistence his spam is remains in abortion. Who said breaking the rules does not help. I have reported him to ] but nothing has been done and he acts with complete impunity, reverting 5 times and attacking me anbd making faklse accusations into the bargain. Why do I bother? Why do Big Hurt's baseless and untrue allegations get investigated and my Revert proofs ignored? Why is he allowed 5RR and then to keep his spam? as the Bible has nothing to say on abortion, --] 15:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

: See response on ]. --]|] 16:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===
] as well as other anons (probably all the same person) have repeatedly reverted this article back to a version that is clearly POV. Despite discussion on talk page they are determined to revert back to their version. ] 16:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Doesn't look like a big deal. It was only recently unprotected and it'd be a shame to protect again so soon. Just tell them to stop behaving like big jessies. --]|] 13:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===
] persists in reverting the article to remove anything he feels is "negative" about the the word "Brummagem". The material he is removing is consistent with the definition found in most dictionaries.--] 08:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
* Oh come on! He's done two edits since the end of January, both of them more than two weeks apart, and already you want the page protected? This is a straightforward content dispute and Nick is discussing his changes on the talk page and clearly not interested in edit warring at this stage. Sort it out amongst yourselves. --]|] 13:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===
] persists in reverting the article to remove anything he feels is "negative" about the accent and dialect used by people from Birmimgham. Others feel the material he is removing is factual, NPOV, and simply reports on the widespread negative perception of the accent. Nick's method is to simply revert the article to his last edit, regardless of any material which might have been added since, rather than editing to remove contentious material and justifying his actions.--] 08:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
* A little more active than on ], but still no banana. --]|] 13:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)



===]===
Anon User:4.22x.x.x keeps deleting entire miscellaneous section, no discussion on talk page, only rationale given being edit summary saying "rm miscellany. for reasoning, read ]." which links to MIT talk page saying "It appears that the section was added due to a misunderstanding by User:4.228.102.139 of the NPOV policy (he/she saw some irrelevant deaths added to the Yale University article and started adding deaths at other universities to their respective articles in order to be "fair")." Then to firther show his/her "reasonableness", he/she keeps calling me a vandal in the edit summary, for restoring it. ] 03:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Hasn't been edited at all since ]. --]|] 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This page is currently featured on the front page and is the victim of constant vandalism. ] 14:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* We don't like to <s>edit</s> protect stuff that's linked from the front page--that would defeat the whole point of having a Wiki. --]|] 13:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
*Yeah we don't protect front page articles. I'll just add it to my watchlist. ]] 13:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===

Constant reverts over "gross" human rights violations and (oddly) the capitalization of political philosophies. Maybe protection will force dialogue. ] 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Oh someone has been trying to remove the reference to Pinochet's human rights abuses on and off for months. It doesn't seem to be hampering editing at all. --]|] 13:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===

Long term dispute that needs to be put on ice of a while. Continual RV wars between multiple editors. ] 02:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
* This dispute seems to have gone to sleep over the past week or so. --]|] 13:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===]===
User is removing an entire, multi-paragraph section of the article: Campaign 2004. I've listed the page on Requests for Comment and I'd like the page to be protected in order to avoid the edit war that's occurring. ] 23:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
* Hasn't been edited since ]. --]|] 13:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)



===]===
Request for page protection on this page following repeated POV anon vandalism. reverted currently, I flagged a dispute (within article), put dispute into the discussion , locked the page incorrectly myself and now seek protection . I refer you to the linked page for the ] which deals with the substance and references to the same issue .] 07:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* No sign of any major disputes in the past week. --]|] 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)





=== Old polls in Misplaced Pages namespace ===
Okay, I have a rather strange request... many pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace are obsolete, outdated or simply a straw poll that has closed a long time ago. It happens somewhat frequently that (particularly new) users see such a page, assume it's currently relevant, and for instance add their comments or votes - under the false understanding that they're making a useful contribution that will be noticed.

So would it be a suggestion to protect these pages? Any Misplaced Pages namespace page that is inactive and kept for reference or historical reasons (e.g. those tagged with ]) should arguably remain in its present state, and re-opening the discussion (if needed) should be done on a new page. Just like most bulletin boards have policies against 'thread necromancy' or 'bumping' a year-old thread to the forum top by responding to it.

]]] 11:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

:In a similar vein, what about articles that are entirely complete in themselves? I recommend locking ] because the only edits it is getting right now are vandalism. If someone wants to tweak paragraphs or add comments, it is easier to lock the page from vandals and update the article based on talk page discussion, then to leave the article unlocked and open to some proper edits but mainly vandal edits. What we should have is a locking policy and template that describes the article as entirely complete and further edits should not be necessary, but discussed on the talk page first.--] 14:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, do none of these pages have edit histories? Do timestamps in signatures not work? Just note the date that the poll or discussion closed and move everything said after that date to a more relevant place. I've seen requests like this before, and I still don't understand the desire to have certain pages remain just the way they are, now and forever. Obviously that's necessary for pages which have serious legal weight&mdash;things like ] and the various disclaimer pages. Why is it necessary for old polls and discussions? This isn't a bulletin board, it's a wiki. Pages aren't supposed to be locked without some pressing need. ]
::To Will2k: I suggest reading some of the articles listed in ] before declaring that article "complete". &#8212;]]] 15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Excellent point, but that particular song and article has a special nature to it that makes it a target of vandalism.--] 18:33, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

===]===

We've got an endless revert war going on surrounding Camilla Parker-Bowles and whether she is "the Princess Charles." It's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, and the nimrods over there even removed my attempt as a third-party at mediating a hold. I'm going to try to mediate the hold again, but am not optimistic. I think that the page needs at least temporary protection to encourage the disputing parties to come to a resolution. &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

:Um, so where do we find out if the request will be granted, and how quickly is it acted upon? &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 22:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

::I'm protecting the page. --] ] 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks. &mdash; <sup>(] | ])</sup> 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

===]===
This was a name of what is now the Independence Party of Minnesota, but also of a splinter group that formed when the 2000 election was happening. It deserves its own article. ] continually reverts edits to merge the pages, even after i requested he stop. PLEASE PROTECT ] | ] 20:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===]===

This page is a common target of vandalism (2 reverts needed already today) and I cannot see the advantage to keeping it unprotected. It would make life far easier if it were protected, and would not make things miserable for anyone (the page shouldn't be modified anyway). '']&nbsp;(<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub><font class="plainlinks"></sub>)'' 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Marked with Vprotected. --] ] 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] ===
This page is being continuously reverted, changed and otherwise abused by 3 (and perhaps now 4) IP addresses. There have been 3 non-anonymous users (including myself) that have tried to revert, discuss and explain what is required. We have POV'd the article, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. Details in the discussion page and on the Vandalism in Progress page. ] 21:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===] & ]===
Both pages are under various attacks from various sockpuppetts, recomond that a ban of several hours if not days be implemented untill sockpuppetry is down and a dialog can be furthred between responcible editors in resolving the POV dispute. --] | ] 03:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
This page was reverted by an admin to remove a direct quote with a summary and then protected - this seems unreasonable to me. Can someone unprotect the page. ]
:Context: An anonymous user reverted the article to his preferred version 13 times, against the vocal opposition of several other users, and declared an intent to dodge 3RR blocks. I, previously uninvolved, exercised my option to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the 3RR, as allowed by the protection policy. &#8212;]]] 04:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: Am I to understand that a group of people can force a specific POV just because the organize and obey a rule? We should look at the edit - a full quote from someone versus a summary of it - both of similar length (paragraph changes from 2 to 3 lines on my screen with the full quote) - it seem so self evident that the facts are more clearly presented in a direct quote than a summary. How does this system work for disputations like this?? ] 04:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::There is obviously a dispute here. You can help resolve this by spending the time talking to other people on the talk page. If there are 11 reverts in short order then it seems clear that there is some sort of dispute that should be resolved. ]] 22:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{user|Symes}} is clearly the anon user who made the repeated edits in multiple 3RR violations. He is, frankly, not being honest about the nature of his edits, which ncluded as an introduction to the text: "Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying:" ] (] 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're insistence that I am the anon user at John Kerry is False and demeaning - I have asked ] to verify this to you - I've been told that he can somehow - However, I respectfully request that you retract and apologize this accusation.
::Granted I have been coached through IM by someone whom more experienced on wikipedia than I am for some of my problems last night - but I can not believe how quickly I was attacked. Is this what wikipedia does to someone who is fairly new - just attack when the point of view is different - I spent hours reading about all your "''high ideals''" which I now see are just wasted because there has been no ]. (cc'ed to your user page) ] 02:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

#It seemed clear (and I'll wait to see some evidence to the contrary before I retract that) that you were the anon. He made a string of edits to an article from which this account has been absent; as soon as the page is protected, you appeared on the protection page to defend him. There's the evidence; what is the counter-evidence?
#You forfeited any assumption of good faith when you misdescribed what had been going on (another indication that you are the anon, incidentally). ] (] 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I still can't believe that you have yet again accused me of being the anon - PROVE IT - I am editing from a static IP through Brighthouse. In the mean time I am going to take Hawstom's advice -] 01:08

A request as been made on the talk page to unprotect this page with no objections see ]

===] and ]===
The policy dispute, partly over the usage of "]" as according to ], is currently nominated for arbitration. And these two lists are not the only lists of destinations grouping domestic and international destinations in different sections. ] is in attempt to conform these two lists to the same format of the other lists he created or edited. &mdash; ]] 21:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:This is not a policy dispute, since the term "Mainland China" dosent appear. The only other list classifying them by domestic and international is the Varig page, and not the Lufthansa one he pointed out. So "some" actually refers to one, or at most two, out of all other lists. Instantnood, when moving the destination lists out of the two airliness pages, also changes their presentation to the "domestic/international" format without notice. Finally, I was not the one singularly dictating the format of these pages. They were actually based on existing formats across multiple pages which had more or less kept to similar formats until now.--] 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===Nepali Misplaced Pages Logo===
Someone is trying to use non-Nepali script on the logo.
] 02:30, Apr 12, 2005 (NST)



===]===

The believers of this philosophy keep removing any reference to criticism about it. In particular they remove the link to <michaelbluejay.com/x> Aesthetic Realism is a Cult and that their founder, Eli Siegel, <michaelbluejay.com/x/suicide.html> killed himself. 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (CST)

:Are you sure you've got the right link? The history of that page shows only four revisions in total, three from early 2005 and only one from today. ] 04:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Ah, I see a more extensive history at ] - looks like an anon cut-and-pasted the article back to ] after a move was done. But still, all of the edits over there are from January and February, and I see little evidence of an ongoing conflict. ] 04:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: The page is currently under attantion of people who put the "cult" text on the page. They have no other edit history. ] 21:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The first writer (the one who requested page protection) is Michael Bluejay, webmaster of michaelbluejay.com. I believe I am the "anon" Bryan Derksen refers to because I moved the entry back to the correct designation, ], with both words capitalized properly (as needed for a proper noun). I have just registered in Misplaced Pages formally. ] 17:06, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to comment on the statement "The believers of this philosophy keep removing any reference to criticism about it..." etc. The writer, Michael Bluejay, is not interested in being a real critic (as Matthew Arnold was) but in putting forth unjust pejorative statements, mostly anonymous, which do not deserve the dignity of being called "criticism." A real critic is someone who is truthful and has a constructive purpose.

A major point: In his web pages Mr. Bluejay writes, "We move to the front page of Google for a search on 'aesthetic realism'....Our goal is to be #1 by late April." This is why he is showing interest in Misplaced Pages and putting on the pressure to get links.

I do not wish at this time to quote his emailed personal threat to become Number 1. --] 18:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<!-- Please place new requests at the top. -->
]

Latest revision as of 01:17, 30 December 2024

Wikimedia noticeboard for requesting protection of pages "WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions, Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission, or Misplaced Pages:Random page patrol.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Skip to requests for protection
    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit
    this header: view • edit


    Archiving icon
    Archives

    2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025



    Current requests for increase in protection level

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

    Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.


    Suchir Balaji

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – IPs changing suicide to murder without sources. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    2025 New Orleans truck attack

    Reason: BLPCRIME vandalism. Borgenland (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support temporary semi protection, as all vandalism appears to be from IPs adding uncited info/BLP vios the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Semi-protected – 1 month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Safuwan Baharudin

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constantly IP editing with unsourced information. Anwegmann (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Devara: Part 1

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism of financial figures by various IPs and an ID . -. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Persian Gulf naming dispute

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Skitash (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Semi-protected – 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Dani Olmo

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. EndzoneEnthusiast 18:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Semi-protected – 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    2024 United Kingdom general election

    Temporary semi-protection: Pattern of disruptive editing has continued since expiration of previous protection. CNC (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Trent Alexander-Arnold

    Semi-protection: Persisent disruptive editing of a BLP by IP vandals due to transfer rumours. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    June 2021 North American storm complex

    Reason: Page needs another semi protection. This page was previously protected to prevent an IP LTA (WP:LTA/A5) from editing. Andrew5, the LTA, came back to editing the page today. Semi is being re-requested after the first revert as Andrew5 is an IP-hopping LTA which over 200 IP accounts. The reverting IP is already at SPI, but edit history shows this needs another semi protection round on it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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

    Whopper

    Reason: Page was protected 6 years ago due to sockpuppetry Heyaaaaalol (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Template:User es

    Reason: Protected 20 years ago due to a single vandal (according to protection log). The template is still somewhat highly used so reduce it to semi or ECP Heyaaaaalol (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    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 Request edit 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 Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages:Edit requests


    Handled requests

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