Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Page Protection Request

India national under-20 football team and India national under-17 football team are continuously vandalised by some un registered user and some miscreants. These pages need to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey subrata (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I protected both for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter This is a season for Indian football, many tournaments going on, many such vandalism is going, people come and update anythig and everything, please extend it for 1 month atleast. and also requesting to do for the India national under-23 football team, you can see recent vandalism in the page.--Dey subrata —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not feel there is enough vandalism to justify a month-long protection, and we do not protect pages pre-emptively. If they get vandalized after the protection has expired, please ask for protection at WP:RFPP--Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection needed

2018 SAFF U-18 Women's Championship article is being continuously edited and vandalised again and again, even after correcting certain section its being reverted by some unregistered users. Please protect with page.

@Dey subrata: I have added this request to the project page (here)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion that, at times near political elections, pages about political viewpoints be protected, as it becomes more likely that these pages will be vandalized around elections Jebcubed (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

One or more anonimous users are continuously adding a genre in the page Folklore (Nelly Furtado album) using a source that doesn't confirm it, and everytime I revert the edit they accuse me of being a sockpuppet. It's been suggested I might be dealing with a sockpuppet of MariaJaydHicky, who's edited that page a bit before. Ikcir (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That has been protected by RegentsPark--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nair article is locked. The talk page is also locked preventing any kind of participation.

What would be a genuine reason to block the talk page of an article ? The image used to depict nair women itself is very misleading and inappropriate. We had had a consensus years ago to put up a better image which stayed for a few months buy recently that image has been replaced with a misleading image that does not depict the traditional attire of nair women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:53A0:D338:0:0:1F38:48AD (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• This page has been protected as the result of arbitration discretionary sanctions, as a result of which you need to have a registered account with at least 500 edits to edit it. This is only done because of very extensive problems with editor behaviour on an article in the past. Hut 8.5 07:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Archive bot, where is it?

Cases done are not being archived. Is bot bugged??? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging cyberpower678, as it is his bot (Cyberbot I) that does the archiving. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 02:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: It seems that cyberpower678 did try to do something about the situation. However (Cyberbot I), is only archving only recently closed cases. The older ones located at the top of the page, that have been closed for a much longer time than the ones that have just been archived, are still there and not being archived. So theoretically the problem still exists. It also means that the recent archive is now not in order and is dissorgqnized state. The older ones are theoretically going to be placed into a more recent archive after the just recently archived cases, as recently closed when they are not. Same with the newer ones which were just recently archived which when the older closed classes get archived, the newer ones will be in an older archive section, while the older classes in a newer archive section.

I could be wrong about this and this being not a problem. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It just archived the older ones. Didn't check if the archives are now out of order. How does one check that? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Usually bot archive ECP approved request after 12 hours and other approved request or just marked Done after 1 hour and denied for 4 hours. If you want to archive immediately, you can add {{rfpp}} Hhkohh (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Archiving RfPP requests

A user has requested that we convert the rolling archive into a WP:PERM-style permanent archive. See WP:VPR#Complete auto-archiving of RFPP. Sounds uncontroversial to me, but if anyone can think of a reason we shouldn't do this, feel free to comment there.  Swarm  talk  21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. +1 support. PrussianOwl (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Make use of sections, and put "increase of protection" at the bottom

Please allow inexperienced users to use a simple pre-filled "new section" link to request protection. The current "Instructions" are a bureaucratic mess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Just install WP:TW. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)