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
m Reverted edits by 70.50.77.80 (talk) to last version by Faralay
Lbparker40 (talk | contribs)
349 edits
No edit summary
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|Brian Wells}}====
'''Semi Protection''' Temporary semi protection to prevent recent vandalism due to the high tension that surrounds the current event.


===={{la|internet}}====
===={{la|internet}}====

Revision as of 19:18, 11 July 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 Protection Temporary semi protection to prevent recent vandalism due to the high tension that surrounds the current event.

    Semi Protection Continuously being vandilized by anonymous users with a variety of ip adresses. Vandilism includes page blanking and trolling. Its a oftenly viewed page and has a big target painted onit for vandals. Yamaka122 ...☑ 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather amusingly ironic!--Rambutan (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected.-Wafulz 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full protect, indef: Abuse of {{unblock}}, trolling.--Rambutan (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. continually adding the unblock template is annoying to the admins but it's not harmful, and he hasn't done it since the last warning. if he disregards the warning then maybe page protection is warranted. ugen64 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Will you inform him of your wise decision, or shall I?--Rambutan (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect, this article was just vandalized, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=E3&oldid=143972624 and it is about an on going event, so it has a much higher risk for vandalism. --IMandIR 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Full protection not necessary. -Wafulz 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect, to cool down vandalism from all (before protect revert to stable) -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its most one ip address thats doing the damage. Has the user been warned and is the user had a final warning and continues to vandalize the page? Yamaka122 ...☑ 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Anon user on dynamic IP repeatedly inserts link spam. Only one instance since the last semi-protection wore off, but I hope we can cut this off at the bud. Past protection is apparently no deterrent to continuing once it wears off; perhaps longer-term protection is needed. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Anon user with static IP edit warring to add poorly worded text and enter misleading info. --Strothra 13:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Frequent vandalism from various ip addresses to teachers names and school infomation; almost all edits by ip address in past few months have been vandalism. Joseph 098 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection..-Wafulz 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit war going on, with little response to the discussion I tried to initiate on the Talk page. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Seems like it's one user being disruptive with the intent to keep people away from the business. I've warned them to stop edit warring without discussion.-Wafulz 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. A Link to the Past is being difficult. (as ususal) – Steel 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected.-Wafulz 13:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Vandalism and offensive messages being written about school staff, text copied verbatim from school promotional material SJH 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect due to edit warring. -- Aivazovsky 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. Will deal with formalities later. – Steel 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect due to edit warring. -- Aivazovsky 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. Will deal with formalities later. – Steel 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect. Due to constant editing wars. Despite some reasonable attempts by some parties to compromise (see "A Fair Solution" in discussion area) by some users, there are still some rogue users who are intent on reverting every fair edit that is made. This can only be regarded as constant vandalism. The article as at 09:59, 11 July 2007 is fair and accurate, as well as unbiased, I believe. Any reverts or edits beyond that will most likely be vandalism. The crux of this matter is that representatives of a certain member (Andy Powell) of this rock group are using Wikipedia as a kangaroo court to hinder the legitimate activities of another member (Martin Turner), who has equal legal rights to the band name and trading style. I am sure you will agree this practice is unacceptable and recommend the page be fully protected until such a time that these individuals are able to refrain from using wikipedia for anything other than its intended purpose.--80.47.255.223 10:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    any edits after 10:47, 11 July 2007 212.139.252.82 are vandalism -- 80.47.255.223 10:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 12:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, for obvious reasons. Will (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused. Please specify. --293.xx.xxx.xx 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Please remove the page and talk from Wikipedia:Protected titles/December 2006 as it is now an article. --MichaelLinnear 05:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Pax:Vobiscum 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about a trolling organisation. Therefore, the article is a troll magnet. Will (talk) 12:49, 11 July 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.

    unprotect. Spoilers contained within the plot. Faralay 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection should be enough. Original full protector welcomed requesting unprotection. Cfeet77 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Similarly protected for some months for "IP's edit warring". 68.39.174.238 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for several months with no protection template or anything for that matter, over vandalisms... 68.39.174.238 12:42, 11 July 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.

    We are trying to edit this page. could an admin please come to the talk page, to help us and provide some guidance on the next step? thanks. --Sm8900 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: message left at the article's Talk page. Regards, Phaedriel - 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific description of the requested edit:

    Delete this statements:

    • Under his office, Hungary suffered a high-profile athletic doping scandal during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. (no reference to justify the connection with him)
    • After his return to politics, Gyurcsány was at first tight-lipped on his religious affiliation, leading many to assume that he is an atheist (as can be expected from a former KISZ leader).

    (Referenced content don't justify about this this statement. The "as can be expected from a former KISZ leader" is an subjective opinion. Thanks --Beyond silence 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It seems to have been protected due to an edit war involving these statements. Protection is so parties are forced to either discuss or give up. Try one of those (preferably the former). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect Best I can tell, the anonymous IP's have been at it before June 21st. Adding cruft and whatnot. I already had to delete a copyright violation and game tips.--293.xx.xxx.xx 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, for now. I noticed you recently left a talk page note to the main anon. Please tell me (on my talk) if he continues. – Steel 12:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    full protection Full protection: Vandalism, User:GlitchUNDERGROUND repeatedly replaces free-use comment icons (e.g. Image:Information.svg with copyrighted icon images from Microsoft Windows, despite repeated warnings not to do so. ~Matticus TC 10:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect, due to lots of recent, IP-based vandalism. - Cyrus XIII 07:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The vandal has been blocked. Pax:Vobiscum 09:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. edit dispute. trivia section is continually being revived by Anton Mravcek (talk · contribs) without explanation or comment after section was duly tagged and deleted. emerson7 | Talk 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Semi-protection wouldn't stop him from adding it again and full protection does not seem appropriate yet. Pax:Vobiscum 09:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Unregistered users constantly add every character that has appeared in the show. I mean every, like characters in the background who don't talk, characters who have only appeared once, and characters who don't even have names. This violates WP:Cruft, and from what I understand the page was locked in the past for the same reason. DietLimeCola 02:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-Protection. High-risk template associated with welcoming newcomers. Jouster  (whisper) 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Pax:Vobiscum 09:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Featured page, currently on front page, and has recently attracted vandalism - Popidge 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined We generally don't semi-protect today's featured article except for extraordinary circumstances.--Chaser - T 06:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection. There is a mutual agreement on adding reliable references to the article. [[1]] There are clear absuses and noticeable biases of the Admin in this page. User:Emptystand101 7:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    Declined It's semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Affected editors are welcome to post on the article's talk page.--Chaser - T 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Please help. Edit war with anon IP continues. Blatant spam. 62.30.83.77 01:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected At least until I can figure out how blatant this is.--Chaser - T 03:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP and/or brand new user vandalism. RSStockdale 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect because of repeated potentially libelous statements about one band member, completely unsourced, and always from an IP address. I have continually reverted vandalism, but user has become increasingly persistent. Multiple IP's have been used to vandalize over history of this page.Buddyholly4 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. We take biographies of living persons very seriously, and this article appears to be under the scutiny of the policy. However, the IP address has not been warned their activities are contrary to our policies. Should the IP be warned and carry on, the IP can be blocked, making protection unnecessary either way. --Deskana (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    unprotection. Consensus seems to have been reached on the talk page, though there seems to be some confusion about who can unprotect a page. semper fictilis 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- John Reaves (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    John, there is no consensus for the changes some of the editors want to make, and you did not discuss your unprotection with the protecting admin that I can see. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full-protection to prevent sockpuppeteers to come back and delete the "scam section". Cheers, JetLover 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now. The user was blocked. If this carries on, please re-request. --Deskana (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Very high level of vandalism, mostly IP. Basically the guy is making a contentious (sporting) transfer at the moment and is attracting a lot of bile from fans of the team he is leaving. Hopefully it will blow over in a week or so. aLii 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi until AfD is closed; AfD tag has been removed twice now by unregistered IPs. - Chardish 21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=144024142"