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
Stephen Barrett
SigmaX54 (talk | contribs)
179 edits
→Current requests for protection: -Requested semi-protection for article "List of Rugrats characters"
Line 7: Line 7:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}

===={{la|List of Rugrats characters}}====
'''Semi-Protect''' Repeated and persistent IP vandalism by anonymous users. Warnings and blockings have been handed out, but user(s) continue to recklessly vandalize the article. --[[User:SigmaX54|SigmaX54]] 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


===={{la|Stephen Barrett}}====
===={{la|Stephen Barrett}}====

Revision as of 18:31, 26 June 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.

    Semi-Protect Repeated and persistent IP vandalism by anonymous users. Warnings and blockings have been handed out, but user(s) continue to recklessly vandalize the article. --SigmaX54 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎Full protection Content dispute that's been going on since March 22. Article was just unprotected and an editor is making multiple edits against consensus, on the very topics that the article was protected. --Ronz 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IP Vandalism and content disputes. The section about AAM is always deleted and replaced with something like "To keep the integrity of the game intact, no one should reveal the method of AAM'ing". While this addresses a concern of the community, Wikipedia is not a wing of the community and thus should not be held at it's whim. Information on the concerns of the community has already been added. Information on AAM is valid and Wikipedia-worthy and therefore should not be deleted. Wouldyoulikeacookie 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Frequent IP-vandalism. It always starts again when the page becomes unprotected. Can this page be semi-protected forever? Rocketmagnet 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP-vandalism. --MrStalker talk 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. Edits by both anons and registered users who replace sourced biographical article with material taken directly from the subject's website. Edits are made without discussion on the talk pages, and have taken place over the past few weeks. Dchall1 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection - Full protection requested, content dispute about to approach edit war that affect templates and modifies content across the entire project. Justinm1978 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - four edits involving only two people is not an edit war. Please try talking it out on the talk page. --BigDT 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring by several IP address on his birthplace, and I need assistance. Semi-protection will help for the time being, but constant surveillance is needed if no protection is offered. I have tried giving out warnings, but a new IP address will come and maul the page. Mr Tan 14:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, not enough to justify page protection. --Alison ☺ 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly needs protection, for edit warring with User:PONIEV is goign on. Also, this disruptive user shuns all forms of negotiations, and continuously reverts and edit the page not according to Wikipedia:MOS, and refuses to explain why he is removing Fenandez's Vietnamese ancestry without sourcing. This may constitue vandalism, and surveillance is needed. Mr Tan 14:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Report the user to WP:AIV --Alison ☺ 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection: Dispute, Vandalism/ prevent edit war ChrisLamb 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. by someone else. – Steel 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Second request due to continued vandalism from anon IP with 7 separate attacks in the last 48 hours. Tabercil 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected
    --Richard 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Although I would love FULL PROTECTION, 3 weeks should do. We are constently at war with link spammers, the page has been protected before. Its getting really old. Warrush 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5 vandalisms in 2 days isn't enough? Warrush 15:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Vandals!! semi 12:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 13:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Relentless IP vandalism; constantly breaks the LimeWire article's infobox where it's transcluded. Chris Cunningham 11:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the point of that template? It's only used on two articles. – Steel 13:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Almost never used anyway. --Alison ☺ 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect There has been another rash of time-wasting and childish IP edits.--Ianmacm 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - it's really not that bad, sorry - Alison ☺ 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Alison ☺ 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect – IPs who constantly add unsourced information to the article, copy and paste large chunks from copyrighted sources and add nonsense to Trivia section. The last 3 threads on the discussion page are mine, all warnings to other users (who obviously don't read the discussion page) not to add unsourced information or warnings about Trivia additions. +spebi ~ 06:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The copyvios were apparently in place as early as January, so it might be best to check whether or not they are actually copyvios or whether the purported source used WP content—very unlikely but possible. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - New user continues to replace the flag of Lebanon with a different flag, which is not the official flag of Lebanon, despite warnings and suggestions to discuss the issue. — George [talk] 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.
    --Richard 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mudkip (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect, unsure for how long. Please see the reasoning at this WP:ANI incident report: here. Shalom Hello 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure that semi-protection would be the best thing to do when there is a content dispute primarily with anonymous editors, but then again, it is some anonymous editors doing the trolling and such. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected (5 days) after reading the ANI thread. – Steel 12:56, 26 June 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.

    It's been quite awhile since his death, could it unprotected or semi-protected? Mycroftholmes1 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No vandalism happening for a long time. --Bahar (Spring in Turkish) ✍ 11:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected – Steel 12:59, 26 June 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.

    In the name of Stephen Colbert, I hereby command you to add the fact that librarians are hiding something! 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    Declined No. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Common now, it says "don't stubst", it says that admins will have edit summaries like "contest was:" but it's not true. When the discussion is over they often say "deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/that particular date", never "content was: #redirect something", someone really needs to delete the message about not stubsting, there is also another problem. Without stubsting it, it will ONLY list to Redirects for discussion of the current day, not the day it started being discussed. TheBlazikenMaster 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Several months of protection unexpired. 68.39.174.238 03:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Riana (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection Semi-protection: High-visible template, Needs semi-protect due to it being a high visibility template, used in 1000+ talk pages. Dark Falls talk 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - done. Even stuck the banner in the correct place (for once!) - Alison ☺ 10:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is Uncyclopedia allowed and this isn't? I know you say its "offensive" and all that, but really, it should be on here. The Walrus 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined You're joking, right? Riana (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - in seriousness, the community decided to delete that yet it was repeatedly re-created. Thus, it ended up SALTed - Alison ☺ 10:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Quite a few inappropriate edits in the past week or two by IPs. Miles Blues 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined 2 edits today by the same IP. Report vandalism to WP:AIV please. Riana (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect -- semi-protection to protect article from vandalism from this shared IP address. 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. But if the problem continues from that particular IP address, we can block it, and legitimate users can create accounts to edit. Riana (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection or at the very least, Semi Protection, he recently died and the page has seen over a hundred edits in the last hour, many posting conflicting points of view and the page has become a mess. It would be nice if the page could be fully protected until things calm down a little, but at the very least it should be semi protected so anons can't edit it. -- Scorpion0422 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Ahoerstemeier. (messedrocker • talk) 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this should be changed to full protection. It's getting heavy amounts of vandalism and will only continue tomorrow. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Increased vandalism on this page. Dreamy 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No edits in nearly four days. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect High level of vandalism and unverified facts over the past few months King Zeal 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect - Nothing but unconfirmed edits by IPs all day. // DecaimientoPoético 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for seven days. (messedrocker • talk) 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection +expiry 3 months, Semi-protection, Montreal is the head for a few major festivals this summer Blah 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Protection is not meant to be used as a pre-emptive mechanism against eventual vandalism.--Húsönd 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection edit war Coloane 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected--Húsönd 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User talk:CRWXTr7 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    The User:WzMG5LJ sockpuppet tag should be added on the talk page because the user was suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:CRWXT, which in turn is a WzMG5LJ sockpuppet. Pants(T) 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (To admins) Also, please add {{pp-usertalk}}. Thanks, Iamunknown 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Riana (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please change it to the version seen at User:TWENCIL4/MediaWiki:Blockedtext. --TWENCIL4 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not prepared to make an extreme change to such an (unfortunately) widely viewed page. Please take it up at WP:VPR, or WP:VPT, or MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext, to gain wider input. Riana (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please change the birthplace of Charles Dickens from Landport Portsmouth to Buckland Portsmouth. As his home is now a museum it should be correct. Old Commercial Rd is in Buckland not Landport.

    Note: Has there been any discussion on the talkpage about this? Riana (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ZScout370 has deleted a substantial article redirected anyone from this page to four times since 13 June an. Tizio has protected the page. These actions have eliminated a substantial article. The last edit by 146.115.58.152 should be restored and protected against ZScout370's vandalism.

    Declined - talk to the protecting administrators who seem to have good reasons. Accusing them of vandalism is a bad idea. Kusma (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zscout370 provided no information in the "Mark Hearn" page discussion as to why he had taken action. This by itself violates the spirit of the Wikipedia which asks that major changes be commented on and justified in the discussion. After I inquired ZScout370 wrote that someone (no identification) sent an email asking that the article be removed and ZScout370 redirected it. ZScout370 provided no further information. This has no explicative power whatsoever. I have put a series of questions about this action on ZScout370's talk page. To justify ZScout370 action, to show that it was not vandalism, ZScout370 should provide satisfactory answers, such as, in what way was the article unfair or incorrect. Please note that in asking this I am not claiming that the article was fair or correct, but a short search shows that it was pretty accurate, with much of the information coming from Hearne's own bio at his law firm.
    Removal and protection was based on an OTRS action, which I left in the edit summary. That is all I can say, due to the private nature of OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Double- Declined. Daniel 05:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=140786149"