Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Should something be put in telling admins about {{RFPP}}?

Strangely, a template with absolutely no links from here isn't well known to all admins. -Amarkov blahedits 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a little note under "Instructions". It's not particularly visible but I tried to avoid cluttering up the page more than it already is. -- Steel 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have done that much, but I'm not sure how sensitive the bot is to that kind of thing. "DO NOT CHANGE THE LAYOUT" warnings tend to make me paranoid. It's probably not needed for it to be prominent, admins aren't going to jump in without reading the page. -Amarkov blahedits 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Thank You!

just wanted to say a huge thank you for semi-protecting the RFKpage - it has had a huge impact and has drastically reduced vandalism in a way I hadn't imagined. Very very very much obliged.Iamlondon 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (main editor at the Bobby Kennedy page)

[edit] PLEASE LIFT PROTCTION

Page should be free for all to review and edit otherwise we miss out on great writers and excellent Wikipedia material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Brown Snr (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, first step on asking for an article being unprotected is to say which article it is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

First you have to ask your self, do you want every day hackers and vandlists to just be able to say what ever they want on wikipedia. I think there should be a lock so just Wikipedia users and members can edit and say what they want. EnsignLovel January 22 9:39 2007

[edit] Redirect protection?

Yo. Ace here. Big of an issue at Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The page, a redirect, is sort of being fought over. I was wondering, first off, if full protection could be gained. I know that's usually restricted for temporary basises and disputes, but this is something of an exception. So, if I submitted some kind of survey and gain consensus, would protection be in order to prevent further edits, however well intentioned they may be? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I realise the level of disruption that and related pages suffer. I have been bold and protected it against moves. Any move request should go to WP:RQM first. Asteriontalk 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem seems to be with REDIRECT not with actual page move. I suggest you discuss this in the talk page beforehand. Asteriontalk 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I agree. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a stupid idea. Heh. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween (film)

Someone needs to at least semi-protect this article, as many, many anon vandals keep blanking the page, deleting sections, and replacing with such things as 'This is a good movie'. Thank you. -- Tyson Moore 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the inevitable result of having an article on the main page (and quite a common suggestion), but consensus has been (just about) not to protect it unless there's very heavy and consistent vandalism from multiple accounts, preventing blocking). Even then, it will only be semi-protected for a limited amount of time. See WP:NOPRO for the rationale and more details. Trebor 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is My Monobook.js Protected (full)

I cannot change my monobook. Why is this? is it some sort of global monobook.js protecting? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's monobook is fully protected against other users, for the obvious reasons. You should be able to edit your own however. You were logged in when you tried? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer Definition

I suggest a paragraph explaining hanging itself. Here is a sample.

Hanging, contrary to popular belief, does not asphyxiate the victim by means of the noose hanging. Hanging was designed to break the victims neck. This is the reason for the knot of the noose being placed on the side of the neck.

Also, the word "coil" in the first or second sentence should be changed to "noose", or "rope". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Discuss changes on the talk page of the article, not here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot down?

User:VoABot seems to be down...? So that the page doesn't get super-full, is there any particular duration we wait before moving entries to Fufilled/Denied, and then removing them from that category? -- Natalya 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but I'm gonna give it a trim anyway. --Robdurbar 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Just plain remove them. I did yesterday, removing the ones older than 12 hours (I think). If someone needs to find something, then they can always looks through the history. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's back up. :) -- Natalya 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, its up now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFP Archive?

Is there some kind of archive for the WP:RFP page itself? (I know that this talk page is archived.)--Aervanath 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure there isn't. You'll have to dig through the history manually. Carson 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Fun fun fun! No big deal, I guess. I'm just lazy. :) --Aervanath 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Fooked

The 'edit' tags on the page are all displaced (i.e. to edit a section, you have to click on the tag for the section below it). How did that happen??? --Robdurbar 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me... perhaps a WP:BUNCH problem? Kusma (討論) 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well it seems fine now... was probably just temporary, or my browser, or something. --Robdurbar 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The page changes all the time. If between the time you load the page and you click an "edit" button, a new request might have been added. Since MW handles it by putting &editsection=# , if the number of the section becomes different, you're editing a different section. And with VoABot clearing and whatnot. For example, you want to answer the second request, and someone makes a new request at the top before you click edit. Now, you're still editing section 2 (or whatever), but it appears to be the one above because it got displaced by a new request. </techinalmumblejumbo> -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for clarity: Protected Section

My recent experience with the issue of protection on the Ann Coulter article gave me what I believe is a productive idea for this page. Nobody seemed to know why it was protected in the first place, and I'm sure there was probably a good reason. As a subject of discussion, Ms. Coulter can spark emotional debates. I noticed similar comments regarding World War 2, and others as I scrolled down. If this page had a separate section listing the pages currently under protection and why they are that way. This might help reduce confusion, and curb suspicions of anyone thinking a particular page being protected is part of a "Wikipedia Conspiracy". Unfortunately I have not had time to make an effort to see how many protected pages there are on Wikipedia. If the number of protected articles is more than section should have, perhaps a sub-page could be created. Anynobody 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PP (warning big) or Special:ProtectedPages (when it gets up). Reasons are usually "vandalism", "banned user", "edit warring", "BLP", or something along those lines. Just ask the protecting admin if you need a clarification (seen in history, or the logs. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The logs for each page will also provide the reason(s) for any protection of the page (though many readers probably won't know about them). -- Natalya 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why can't Dixie Chicks be semi-protected?

I'm not shopping for a second opinion, but I'd like a clearer explanation as to why a page that's made no progress over the last 50 edits within the last few hours isn't semiprotected. Many contributions are factually incorrect (5 nominations, 2 wins, but IPs and at least one registered account keeps saying 5 wins. Xiner (talk, email) 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked deeper into the problem, and it's my cache. My news page has been wrong/obsolete all this time. Sorry. Xiner (talk, email) 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection problem

I think we should restrict unprotection requests to reasons other than time limits of being semi-protected. Any objections?? Georgia guy 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection. Being protected too long is a reason for unprotection, especially if it's been over 3 weeks. I just did a drive through WP:PP the other day and probably unprotected over 20 pages that had been protected for over a month. If people make requests here, it makes it even easier. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that we can add expiry dates when protecting pages hopefully admins will start to use this feature more and more and this won't be much of a problem. VegaDark 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I try to use the expiry feature as much as I can, but for some pages it's still best to leave them protected for an undefined amount of time. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged but not protected

A few days ago I requested semi-protection for the page Joe Trohman. The article is tagged as semi-protected, yet IPs are vandalising at will. -- Dan D. Ric 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK guess it's protected now. - Dan D. Ric 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this encilopedia of facts or pamflet bulettin board of "greek" wannabes??? The name of the airport is "Alexander the Great", the same as the airport in Sallonica is named "Makedonia". Previous name of the airport "Alexander the Greaat" was Petrovec (the name of the vialege nearby), the same as the airport in Sallonica which was named Micra (the name of the vialege nearby).

If you don't believe that it is the correct name, please come in and lend on it. You will see.

[edit] How did an Anon get to edit sprotected page James Blunt?

Perhaps I am missing something, but the James Blunt page was sprotected about 10 days ago. Today, an anon edited the page, and in fact changed some statistical information - the kind of vandalism that is nearly impossible to catch. These were the only two edits of this anon, according to the contribution list. How did this happen? Have I missed something and the page got unprotected without anything in the history, or the tag being removed? Thanks. Risker 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I see the page protection ended yesterday. Funny how the first edit afterward was an anon doing sneaky vandalism. Risker 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todays featured Article

Last night(Yesterday) I rejected a request for Avatar: The Last Airbender to be protected as it was the FA on the main page, this diff but I see that it was relisted and protected then the protection was removed. Then todays article has also been listed but this time decline and the policy linked again. I was just thinking that maybe this policy should have a statement and be linked to from the page header. This would remind admins of the policy and also advise editors that such a policy exists, just a simple sentence like.

Todays Featured article doesn't normally received protection please read the complete policy before requesting. Gnangarra 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To: Protectors

Discussion is happening right now on requests from users about "indefinate userpage protection" at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Indefinate Sprotection on Userpages. Comments would be appreciated. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong International School

My request for that to be semi-protected completely disappeared from the page... can anyone look into it for me? Thanks. CityPride 12:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really enough activity to justify protection for Hong Kong International School. – Steel 12:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but sometimes vandalism makes it hard for us to even separate what is vandalism and what is real. It gets vandalized once in a while. But if there isn't enough activity then its ok and thanks :) CityPride 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945

Why is there a delay in actioning the request to unprotect this article, it's been sitting in the request queue for over a day now while later requests have been promptly actioned. Martintg 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends if theres no discussion or if theres no comprise etc it can stall requests. Lakers 01:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion Template

Why is this template considered a high-risk template? It is not listed as one. It is linked less than 80 times. Is it now going to be frozen forever because one editor wants it to be frozen forever? Thanks in advance for explaining some more (and for perhaps unprotecting?).Ferrylodge 04:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the template on Template:Abortion, it's currently under dispute (ie, edit war). I don't know any of the background into the matter, so that's all I can give you. I do see a lot of constant reverts near the time of protection though. You should ask the protecting admin, User:Cbrown1023 for more details if you need them. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for option to automaticaly schedule unprotection after vandalism

Something else that would be useful in the arsenal of protection tools is a way, at the time of protection or semi-protection, to choose to automatically schedule a corresponding unprotect. This occurs to me because Rabbit was recently left protected for over two weeks after a spat of vandalism. This interfered with my ability to contribute a couple of really minor changes.

Unlike certain hot topics (politics, religion, etc.) I think its fair to say that targeting the rabbit article for vandalism was probably an arbitrary choice, so having a time-out for vandal-prompted protection could mean one less thing for an admin to do. I don't have an opinion about how long the period of time should be between protection and unprotection. One alternative is to allow the admin to choose the duration of the protection. A simpler approach, probably implementable via a Wikipedia:Bot, would be for the duration to be fixed.

Just a suggestion...67.100.122.199 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

This feature was recently implemented. I'm not sure how often it is used though. The protection templates still need to be removed manually though. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It all depends on which admin you get. I use expired protection whenever I can, others will not use expiry dates. There's nothing mandatory about using it. It makes it much easier in terms of making sure that we aren't protecting pages for 2 months though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to hear it is already implemented. Thanks for the replies. 68.167.254.136 (fka 67.100.122.199 (talk • contribs)) 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_page_protection_f234.html"