Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for page protection page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This talk page is not for requesting page protection or unprotection. If you want to request administrator actions, do so on the page itself instead. |
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- An open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information is collecting signatures.
- Should it be a requirement for all administrators seeking resysop to have completed their last administrative action within the previous five years?
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of a recall petition be shortened?
Interface protected edit request 19 October 2024
 | This edit request to MediaWiki:Request-page-protection-form.js has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please sync with User:SD0001/Request-page-protection-form.js to address the issue raised at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Ungraceful_fail. Failures will be gracefully handled with this update. – SD0001 (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Done Izno (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
RE: Sarah Jama Page
Good afternoon everyone,
I need help requesting enhanced protections for article title "Sarah Jama". There is a high level of politically-motivated vandalism being successfully published by opponents of Sarah Jama, and it seriously undermines the impartiality of her entry. I attempted to request protection and received error code "Abusefilter-disallowed. Please try again or ask for help at WT:RFPP."
I only want to ensure impartiality and objectivity is being maintained, and when I updated her article last week to include her legislative work as sitting Minister of Provincial Parliament for Hamilton Centre, those updates were maliciously deleted, despite their objective relevance, accuracy, and accompaniment by reliable citations.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you
Patrick PatHamilton47 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PatHamilton47: It looks like the page has been protected by El C. In the future, please file protection requests at WP:RFPP. (Note: I removed
|answered=NOfrom this section since this isn't an edit request.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Upward of a thousand articles requiring protection
There has been ongoing, long-term vandalism on all Pakistani election constituency pages, which affects living persons indirectly, as candidates running in the elections are living individuals. I am exhausted from continuously addressing vandalism on these pages, which consumes nearly all of my editing time, leaving me unable to contribute constructively to other Wikipedia areas. The pages needing protection include 266 National Assembly constituency pages, ranging from NA-1 Upper Chitral-cum-Lower Chitral to NA-266 Killa Abdullah-cum-Chaman. Recently, another editor informed me that this vandalism is also spreading to Provincial Assembly constituency articles. Since there are four Provincial Assemblies, with several hundred pages per assembly, the total number could exceed a thousand pages. Is there a simple way for admins to protect such a large number of pages at once, perhaps through a script? If so, could someone please assist? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pages are not protected preemptively. If specific pages are being disrupted, please submit them as a group (make a request for one page, explain the overall request in the reason field, and add
{{pagelink}}lines for the related pages that are currently undergoing recent and significant disruption that isn't better handled via some means other than page protection. Please don't create busywork by requesting protection for pages that aren't going to be protected (e.g., neither NA-1 Upper Chitral-cum-Lower Chitral nor NA-266 Killa Abdullah-cum-Chaman seem to be experiencing issues sufficient to justify protection). Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Coming over here from that LTA talk page. Daniel Quinlan is right that we don't have a technical way to do this - semiprotecting all of those pages would require someone going to each one and pushing the buttons. You could make that request by listing them all in a combined request, or you could perhaps ask at ANI, but I think you'd have to work hard to make a case for it being worth the effort compared with possible other options. Blocking individual disruptive editors might be more effective given the number of articles. It looks to me like one anonymous editor, Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1361:554F:0:0:0:0/64, has been responsible for nearly all of the disruptive editing in the past few days at least - would blocking that editor from article edits help, or is the problem much larger than that? I see that IP is also part of a partial block on a much larger range. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector I know who that actual editor might be but proving that would be a hard job as well, they came out of a long break and commented on an ANI against me few weeks ago. They keep changing the IPs, they perform disruption from one IP only once, blocking the IP would be after the fact, next time they will come with another IP. A range block might help. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Coming over here from that LTA talk page. Daniel Quinlan is right that we don't have a technical way to do this - semiprotecting all of those pages would require someone going to each one and pushing the buttons. You could make that request by listing them all in a combined request, or you could perhaps ask at ANI, but I think you'd have to work hard to make a case for it being worth the effort compared with possible other options. Blocking individual disruptive editors might be more effective given the number of articles. It looks to me like one anonymous editor, Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1361:554F:0:0:0:0/64, has been responsible for nearly all of the disruptive editing in the past few days at least - would blocking that editor from article edits help, or is the problem much larger than that? I see that IP is also part of a partial block on a much larger range. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request for Naim Qassem on 3 November 2024
I think extended-confirmed-protected edit is too much for Naim Qassem. Can you please change the protection to semi-protected edit please? Richie1509 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, as this falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Also see the notice on the talk page of said article. Lectonar (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)