Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→{{lut|MONGO}}: Response: un-protection request denied
Line 77: Line 77:
:::'''Appeal for Review''' - I was just looking around and noticed something this Mongo said on another users userpage being quite rude to them simply because they had two usernames, all I wanted to say was to please be civil, that doesn't make me a "troll" or a "sockpuppet", I apologise if you feel patronised by a newbies intention to warn you. --[[User:RuleBrittania|RuleBrittania]] 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Appeal for Review''' - I was just looking around and noticed something this Mongo said on another users userpage being quite rude to them simply because they had two usernames, all I wanted to say was to please be civil, that doesn't make me a "troll" or a "sockpuppet", I apologise if you feel patronised by a newbies intention to warn you. --[[User:RuleBrittania|RuleBrittania]] 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Not unprotected. '''[[User:Majorly|<font color="blue">Majorly</font>]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Majorly|<font color="green">(o rly?)</font>]]</sub> 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Not unprotected. '''[[User:Majorly|<font color="blue">Majorly</font>]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Majorly|<font color="green">(o rly?)</font>]]</sub> 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please, you can't just ignore me, I've done nothin incivil! [[User:MONGO|Mongo]] was a bit rude to another user, I just wanted to warn him off.. wheres the problem, could someone contact me and tell me why I'm being discussed in such a negative way and completely ignored --[[User:RuleBrittania|RuleBrittania]] 21:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


===={{la|Chavo Guerrero, Jr.}}====
===={{la|Chavo Guerrero, Jr.}}====

Revision as of 21:06, 3 March 2007


"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.
    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.

    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


    Current requests for protection

    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.

    Full protection. G2bambino keeps deleting 2 sections of the article over and over again. Magonaritus 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the article needs protection as Magonaritus is editing in Bad Faith and to make a point. --G2bambino 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:74.242.96.29 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Request 48 hour semi-protection. User removing warnings while blocked. Nardman1 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will semi-protect only if he does it again. I was the one who originally blocked the Lman1987 socks, and I have no blocked this user for 6 months. Nishkid64 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. This article's first paragraph is a firestorm. It's been edited hundreds of times in the last month or two, and has deteriorated significantly in quality. It's mostly a fight between people who want to include descriptions of same-sex marriage and polygamy as forms of marriage practiced in some regions, and those who want to describe marriage as between one man and one woman only, barring any mention of the rest. Please fully protect before the whole thing disintegrates. Joie de Vivre 19:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - this article keeps vandalized by non registered IPs. Given the topic of the article, the size of the article, and the number of views it may get, can we please protect it? If we can protect it, is it possible to use sprotect2? -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - this article keeps vandalized by non registered IPs. Given the topic of the article, the size of the article, and the number of views it may get, can we please protect it? If we can protect it, is it possible to use sprotect2? -Nima Baghaei (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Watchlist and revert. Trebor 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. A co-founder of the web site (deviantart.com) is discussing the article on the talk page. His appearance and the controversy over whether he really is a co-founder has caused several anon editors to vandalise the article, removing the co-founder's name or cursing him. Semi-protection would help while the disputed issues are discussed. Imroy 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. RFPP for this page was originally enabled on February 5, 2007 due to high IP vandalism, and removed on February 25, 2007 after a request from myself as it seemed the article had reasonably stablised. Regretably, there have been 16 vandalisation attempts on the article in the space of four days, with all but two being caused by anonymous IP's. These issues have once again included content blanking, offensive content, and inserting incorrect information. Intend for SPP to remain in place for at least 30 day minimum before review. thewinchester 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a month, due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. Consistent vandalism. Please just semi-protect this. I have also noticed some sly vandalism, where facts have been changed. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Watchlist and revert; warn and list vandals. Trebor 15:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. An IP hopping editor has repeatedly been lamely removing apostrophes from wording in this article making it read incorrectly. The IP user has been warned but given past disruptive minor editing is likely to continue. (→Netscott) 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Only been editing from two different IPs (which I've blocked) so semi-protection not necessary at this point. If the editor returns, skip the warnings and list straight on WP:AIV (with an explanatory note). Trebor 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for 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.

    Article was fully protected on Feb 20 and talk page was semi-protected; since then, the talk page has been almost totally quiet. Seems like we could try semi-protection on the article, or lifting the protection entirely. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is inaccurate to suggest he head hunts other teams superstars. That is a Leaf fan's opinion and is certainly not fact.

    It's bee protected since Feb 20; let's unprotect it and see how things go. -/- Warren 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Essjay (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    It has been protected since 1 MAR. Navou banter / contribs 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the attention being given to Essjay (and the fact it was protected less than 48 hours ago), I'd suggest contacting the protecting admin (User:Steel359), to see his feelings on unprotecting. Trebor 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:MONGO (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    I need to give this user an AGF warning. There is no real reason for it to be protected. I shouldn't be banned from placing legitimate warnings just because I'm new here! Please unprotect. --RuleBrittania 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked for User:MONGO's opinion on this. Trebor 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment has been placed on my talk page. Taking semi-protection off my talkpage will likely result in a lot of trolling there which will simply be removed. This editor has no reason to leave me any warning at all.--MONGO 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined template for archiving. Trebor 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Appeal for Review - I was just looking around and noticed something this Mongo said on another users userpage being quite rude to them simply because they had two usernames, all I wanted to say was to please be civil, that doesn't make me a "troll" or a "sockpuppet", I apologise if you feel patronised by a newbies intention to warn you. --RuleBrittania 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected. Majorly (o rly?) 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, you can't just ignore me, I've done nothin incivil! Mongo was a bit rude to another user, I just wanted to warn him off.. wheres the problem, could someone contact me and tell me why I'm being discussed in such a negative way and completely ignored --RuleBrittania 21:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Been two weeks now, should of died down the edit war from before. Govvy 13:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Hopefully the edit war won't start up again. Trebor 16:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Has an ungrammatical link, namely, to Flag of United States as opposed to the proper Flag of the United States. Georgia guy 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The link is not included in Template:Country data United States, but is an artifact of Template:Country showdata. --Iamunknown 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There was an edit war a couple of weeks ago and the page was protected. If this page is to remain protected could a tag at least be added to the top of the page, as it is currently unclear to users why editing is disabled. Thanks --Jon186 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 19:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

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

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi protection. Repeated IP vandalism from all directions, more than we can keep up with. While we're dealing with one, ten more have already re-posted what we just reverted. Bullzeye 12:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 13:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection repeated organised IP vandalism again - see [1]. Catchpole 12:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Needs update, no user seems to be willing to do it. The individual´s mixed martial arts debut match date has been officially announced, though nobody changes that as it says in February which is already over. Besides that article almost those not have any activity or correction at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by No Surrender Never (talk • contribs)

    The poster of this unprotection seems to be a sock of indef blocked abusive user Verdict (talk · contribs) who is the reason the protection is in place in the first place. A previous, also unsigned, request for unprotection by this user followed the same pattern here. –– Lid(Talk) 06:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the requested edit. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that the edit wasn't made, but I just finished reading the article, and there is no mistake like that as far as I can see. Now, you are in violation of the three revert rule. I suggest that you tell me here or on my talk page exactly where this mistake is rather than remove these comments anymore. You will be blocked if you continue. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been semi-protected for about a month now. The vandalism that caused the semi-protection was mainly just a one day thing. Funpika 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Relist if vandalism picks up again. Trebor 12:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection. Repeated IP vandalism from many IPs in the last couple of days. Was semi-protected before, vandalism started again as soon as protection was lifted. james (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Almost a third of edits to this article are vandalism by IPs and corresponding reverts, including the last eight. --Koveras ☭ 09:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert. Trebor 09:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Not even 48 hours and the parties are at it again with the reverting, warring on the inclusion of one game. Hbdragon88 08:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for edit warring. Discuss, don't revert. Trebor 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. See my reversion of the page from a few minutes ago, and the Talk section "Possible Hack?". It appears that at least one anonymous user is making unexplained edits to remove and distort information. --Kris Schnee 05:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Warn and list vandals on WP:AIV. Trebor 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. This page has been vandalised more than 25 times in the last hour by three different IP adressees and the edits are still coming. -Dark Dragon Flame 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, it has been taken care of. -Dark Dragon Flame 02:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected template for achiving. Trebor 09:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. An often target of vandalism. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by User:Riana dzasta. Trebor 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, Anonymous users at the local high school constantly vandalize the page. I've reverted it twice today alone. Zyrshnikashnu 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Trebor 09:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, Please!!! KarlBunker 23:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 09:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect; WP:POINT attempt to delete this article failed. The two, or possibly one, editor(s) advocating deletion are now engaging in unilateral page moves to ridiculous titles like "Potentital for Conflict in Kazakhstan." Repeated revert warring. No discussion. KazakhPol 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move-protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. KazakhPol 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done template for archiving. Trebor 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi- protect; semi-protection had expired, now the vandals came back and threw themselves a celebration party. Georgia Peachez 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 09:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Vandals are having a ball and although this did stop for several days, it has once again returned with various attacks. They won't return for a few days because that know what administrators usually say, "They haven't vandalled for two days now, no need for protection", don't let yourself fall into their trap. Please prevent these IP vandals. Thank you! Shaggy9872004 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 09:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect too many anonymous users making vandal edits. Ratio of anonymous vandals versus anonymous legitimate contributors is very small. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.U.G.E.N#Recent_Vandalism_Attacks Messatsu 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Just watchlist and revert. Trebor 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. I'm surprised this hasn't been requested for already! Repeated IP vandalism; just look here for a first glance. The article would clearly be a target for blatant vandalism. Sr13 (T|C) 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week, due to heavy vandalism. Trebor 09:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Definite target for IP vandalism; look here for the recent changes of the article. Sr13 (T|C) 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined We tend not to protect main page articles, for the reasons here. Trebor 09:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Been protected for over a week, should be unprotected if possible... - Denny 23:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. Relist if vandalism picks up again. Trebor 09:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=112405722"