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
Requesting semi-protection of Nefertiti. (TW)
Line 79: Line 79:
====Kosovo====
====Kosovo====
I find it cynical to protect [[Kosovo]] article in the moment when the last change was "is a partially recognized republic", with no mention of Serbia. While it is not fully recognized by the majority of countries and/or UN, there has got to be some mention of it as a Serbian province. I am afraid I have to admit that I think this is deliberate following American and British policy that do recognize its independence, and I think it comes from [[User:Jayron32]]'s political attitudes. I also demand from administrators either unlocking the article and following vandals there, or to add the Serbia part manually and leave it locked, as I proposed in conversation with Jayron32 [[User talk:Jayron32#Kosovo addition|here]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ml01172|Ml01172]] ([[User talk:Ml01172|talk]]) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it cynical to protect [[Kosovo]] article in the moment when the last change was "is a partially recognized republic", with no mention of Serbia. While it is not fully recognized by the majority of countries and/or UN, there has got to be some mention of it as a Serbian province. I am afraid I have to admit that I think this is deliberate following American and British policy that do recognize its independence, and I think it comes from [[User:Jayron32]]'s political attitudes. I also demand from administrators either unlocking the article and following vandals there, or to add the Serbia part manually and leave it locked, as I proposed in conversation with Jayron32 [[User talk:Jayron32#Kosovo addition|here]]. Thank you. --[[User:Ml01172|Ml01172]] ([[User talk:Ml01172|talk]]) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


====Carl the Intern====

Carl is just as vaild as all these other people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIHT Please unprotect his page. I don't want to believe that all the Wikie admins are drunk with power and delete happy.


==Current requests for significant edits to a protected page==
==Current requests for significant edits to a protected page==

Revision as of 19:45, 21 February 2008

"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 pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload 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.

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Slow motion vandalism, see history.Thinboy00 @861, i.e. 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IPs and new account repeatedly blanking page.uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only 1 IP and 1 user (I have a suspicion they are they are the same person) are responsible for recent vandalism. Please watchlist the page, revert vandalism, and warn users as necessary. If they continue, report them to WP:AIV. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to be constant changes, possibly from a biased source, ignoring new information that has come out about this chef. See the talk page for more info. Pcrackenhead (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Information is identical to text in Central obesity. After protection expired, redirects were again removed without explanation and information was duplicated. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These pages were merged without discussion (Muffin top had survived an earlier AfD). I have opened requests for comment on both these articles.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Continued edit warring by brand new editors. Enterprise architect was protected yesterday for the same reason. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Enterprise_architecture. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect edit war. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection edit war over the inclusion of one external link --Coaster1983 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect edit war. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection After 22 incidents in four months, I'm sick and tired of vandalism to my userpage. Xenon54 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected per user request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Content dispute. I am mediating. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected ~ Riana ⁂ 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection , A user is removing contents of the page, again and again..SMS Talk 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined unnecessary as edit-warriors blocked. CIreland (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - ongoing war that resulted in semi protection. Editor has already reverted several times from protected version; should be resolved on talk page.

    In agreement with protecting this article, in order to stop 'edit warring'. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection due to recent announcements in the format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc causing a lot of recentism and predictive updates to the article. HD DVD is already under semi-protection. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Has had several anon and newly-registered users restore self-promotion for gaming clans, trivia, and original research. Getting laborious to undo. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Doesn't seem so bad... hasn't had that many edits to it this month. Revert any vandalism/incorrect additions; if it gets worse report it again here. ScarianCall me Pat 15:14, 21 February 2008 (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.

    As per my request on the deleting admin's talk page (User_talk:Firsfron#Building_and_Social_Housing_Foundation) I think that a non-copyvio page can be created for this subject. I have suggested a first draft / stub of text for it. That request was made a fortnight ago and has not had a response - I think the protecting admin has not been on Wikipedia for a while, so I'm here to request that someone else unprotects the page. Thanks. 217.46.192.153 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Since it was originally protected 8 months ago to prevent a user reintroducing a copyvio, rather than on grounds of notability and since the protecting admin doesn't seem to be around, I've unprotected. Go ahead and make an account so you can make the article. CIreland (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kosovo

    I find it cynical to protect Kosovo article in the moment when the last change was "is a partially recognized republic", with no mention of Serbia. While it is not fully recognized by the majority of countries and/or UN, there has got to be some mention of it as a Serbian province. I am afraid I have to admit that I think this is deliberate following American and British policy that do recognize its independence, and I think it comes from User:Jayron32's political attitudes. I also demand from administrators either unlocking the article and following vandals there, or to add the Serbia part manually and leave it locked, as I proposed in conversation with Jayron32 here. Thank you. --Ml01172 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Carl the Intern

    Carl is just as vaild as all these other people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIHT Please unprotect his page. I don't want to believe that all the Wikie admins are drunk with power and delete happy.

    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.

    Would like to request uncontroversial edit to fully protected template to implement diff already specified on the talk page, in order to finish setting up a new task force for New Zealand. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Stifle (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Permenant protection - The page was merged into the Soham Murders article and is continuosly unilaterally de-merged, without debate. The page should be fully protected to force a discussion on the topic and prevent unilatralism.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It should be noted that the only people in favour of the merger were Lucy-marie and her sockpuppet, see here. If Lucy-marie objects to the article being unmerged, I suggest she takes it to AfD or start a new discussion. One Night In Hackney303 12:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not be uncivil and please only comment on the content and not on individual users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - pages are not protected to further an edit dispute. Discuss your edits on the talk page and if they truly have consensus then apply here again. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, refactoring User:Mike Rosoft user comments [1].Zedla (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected I unprotected it as it was indicated that (s)he might use it constructively, edits since then have shown otherwise. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability is in question, but the notability tag keeps getting deleted. Also, people want to treat this as news, and someone keeps wanting to say she's a scapegoat. I think this could use some protection.--Bedford 06:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Subject has become newsworthy (NYT, WP) in the last 6 hours. While I disagree with Bedford on the tag, I agree that semi-protection might be wise for the next 24 hours. BusterD (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. · AndonicO Hail! 12:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. 72.76.87.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is just the latest incarnation of a dynamic IP vandal that has been adding obscenity to David Shankbone's User talk page. A number of respected editors have been reverting the IP's talk contributions over the past week, and this can still be seen in the history. Two previous versions of this IP have been blocked, though only for short periods. Shankbone is currently on wikibreak. Is it appropriate to give 14 days of semi-protection to his User talk? EdJohnston (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - It appears that this editor has been using a false name while reporting for Wikinews, [2]--71.127.226.76 (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be worth bringing up at Wikinews; meanwhile, it has no bearing on repeated postings of puerile sexual fantasies. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you had an unhappy childhood. Perhaps if your parents hadn't neglected you in favor of making money, things would have been different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.226.76 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds a good idea, EdJohnston. I've just s-protected it.-- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected already by Hoary (tagging to allow archiving) Stifle (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection This article has been vandalized numerous times since it was created and always by multiple unregistered users. Everything from blanking entire sections, adding false information, using it to promote bands, and just to put profanity on the page. The majority of edits are being done to revert what is taking place. DX927 (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Permenant protection - The page was merged into the Soham Murders article and is continuosly unilaterally de-merged, without debate. The page should be fully protected to force a discussion on the topic and prevent unilatralism.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The page is a redirect which hasn't been edited in 8 months. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the nominator meant the Ian Huntley page!-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Appologies for the spelling eror it was the Ian Huntley page.I shall re-list.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection due to constant revert/edit warring over the roster. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Recommend dispute resolution too - WP:RFC as well, and take it from there. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will discuss on talk page.--TrUCo9311 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After AfD is was intentionally left as a redirect to allow the article to be remade. It was protected after it was reverted, but problem was temporary and now no reason for it to be protected. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected - consensus at the deletion review was to endorse the deletion, therefore unprotecting the page will serve no useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, preventive measure, recently perm-blocked User:Akhamenehpour has threatened to is continuing edit war with puppets. [3].Zedla (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, preventive measure, recently perm-blocked User:Akhamenehpour has threatened to is continuing edit war with puppets. [4].Zedla (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection High levels of recent vandalism from multiple IP's. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by SQL. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Varying trolling comments and personal attacks regarding User talk:David Shankbone from varying IP addresses, nine in the past 24h alone. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ScarianCall me Pat 10:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full or semi-protection: During my RC patrols & WP:FACT checks, I observed an on-going edit war between 2 camps that has been raging on for months: one group advocating inclusion of valid criticisms as per WP:Verifiability & another group of anti-inclusion supporters both known (COI warnings were given to 2 primary users here & here) & various anonymous IPs reverted or removed any negative statements even thought the issue was widely reported & well sourced. Acts of sockpuppetry were used previously (See previous case here) & even now to game the 3RR rules. For the common good of Wikipedia in the long run, a page protection is urgently required (as per this revision) until the case is fully resolved by independent review as per talk page discussion. For your prompt follow-up pse. Thank you -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only a couple edits per day. Jmlk17 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Total semi-protection Vandalism, nonstop POV additions by AP1929 using not words like Self-Proclaimed President / Dictator with is not Wikipedia:Verifiability destroying this article. Requesting a semi protect or a temporary suspension until he starts sourcing questionable additions and not some self made creation. See here his critics Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito. He don't have to like this article by can't destroy with not Verifiable References. For good of Wikipedia semi-protection is required. (as this revision show). Snake bgd 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Semi-protection does no good in this slow edit war. A good, solid conversation between you two is what is needed. Jmlk17 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Song is not current single anymore. Activity has let up and I do not believe this article is at high risk of vandalism at this time..Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Jmlk17 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection For some reason this article is subject to regular, completely pointless vandalism, generally by random anonymous editors. This has occurred on average several times a week for at least the last year. --Helenalex (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected 3 months —EncMstr 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection I forgot to request this sub-userpage to be semi-protected along with the other ones i requested for semi-protected ClanCC (T / C) 08:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Jmlk17 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection I forgot to request this sub-userpage to be semi-protected along with the other ones i requested for semi-protected ClanCC (T / C) 08:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Jmlk17 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=193100021"