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
TravisTX (talk | contribs)
9,270 edits
Line 8: Line 8:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}

===={{la|West Aurora High School}}====
'''Semi-protection''' Persistent vandalism by recent registered users or IP addresses for the past 5-6 weeks. [[User:Hoping4nash|Hoping4nash]] ([[User talk:Hoping4nash|talk]]) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


==== {{la|Persecution of Christians}} ====
==== {{la|Persecution of Christians}} ====

Revision as of 01:53, 21 March 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 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 Persistent vandalism by recent registered users or IP addresses for the past 5-6 weeks. Hoping4nash (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect Edit Warring. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite cascading semi-protection Vandalism.Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - Wow that certainly is a lot of anon vandalism. I endorse this semi. My recommendation for the admins would be 3 weeks. : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Travistalk 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full move protection, this page should have indefinite move protection as it was moved twice to inappropriate page names in the past two days Cunard (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected Maxim(talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection , Just like the other "don't upload files with this title" images, C.jpg is not a specific title and should have been disallowed..ViperSnake151 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Anonymous editors (one or two in particular) keep editing without discussion. Very visible current event.Paisan30 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    note - Isn't protection generally never used to thwart editing by users simply because the article details a current events? Just my two cents. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection from anonymous users vandalizing the page and mischaracterizing legitimate users as vandals. Vandal edits from several 32.x.x.x. addresses. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 00:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - IP's began vandalizing the page as soon as the automatic semi-protection expired on Wednesday afternoon (Pacific time approximately). Given that Bonds is a living person who has had a lot of controversy surrounding him recently, and there's been about 10 reverts in the past 2 days, I doubt that this article can survive unprotected. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. By Gb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Jmlk17 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Was automatically unprotected back on March 3. Now there's been another round of IP vandalism since March 18, so this page could use a week or so of semi-protection of editing. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 23:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism therefore making it hard to revert. Mus001 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Editor logging in anonymously to evade WP:3RR. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:North Kosovo, Rocky Marciano and other Mkil vandalism

    full protection vandalism

    Need your assistance, hopefully from somebody who understands some history. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=392973 in this article and in many you will read there are about 50% serbs in north kosovo, thus that would amount to 50-55%. As you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=North_Kosovo&diff=199583456&oldid=199424784 he is reverting number 50.

    Philippines-American war, Czolgosz shot and killed President and that is a fact, he is reverting that http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippine-American_War&diff=199583692&oldid=199506310
    Murad I reverting fact that Murad was killed by poisoned knife.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murad_I&diff=199084026&oldid=198426792

    Rocky Marciano http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=199221632&oldid=199217653 again if you divide 43 by 50 you get 87.755% was his knockout %, he deleted that, then 18 months pneumonia is also a fact http://www.rockymarciano.com/biography.html but yet again he reverted that knowing its wrong.

    As we can see he has been wrong on many issues before, on simple wikipedia http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Rocky_Marciano_decision we see that he was proven wrong on certain things time after time, after time. As we can see, he has been warned before on 3 rule revert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR_stuff and he is wrong on many other articles as many other users tell him to stop it but he goes on (also has certain administrator help him escape punishment by deleting his history) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Joe_Calzaghe, so revert the mkil edits and protect the pages, it's up to you if you want to keep wikipedia more accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#Wrestling I do not want to touch any of these sites, as he always used that against me and other, comparing somebody to somebody who is not or to a suspended user or so on, mkil has been a problem and he does not belong here, he always has an explanation, but should be ignored, always! There are countless other examples, it would take me forever to write them all down! And not only on english wikipedia! He was kicked out and suspended from countless boxing forums under different names.

    temporary full protection Dispute, To get the two parties to talk about the changes rather than continuing to revert one another, which isn't fixing anything. Don't think which version matters, they're both 'wrong' but both sourced..TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. I was seriously tempted to block both, but that would pretty much obviate discussion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Various IP users will not quit adding speculative episode titles to this article. Mythdon (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GBT/C 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect until 5 May: this is the third year in a row I've seen the article overgrown with OR from GCSE students; May 5 is the deadline for mark submissions. Will (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I think I'm getting flashbacks to Merchant of Venice. GBT/C 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    full protection User talk of blocked user, Persistant vandalism to this page, User is now blocked one month, full protection requested.Momusufan (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There's not persistent vandalism - since the block the user has only posted the unblock template, which hasn't yet been dealt with. GBT/C 21:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Many IP's are adding information that violates WP:Crystal Ball. iMatthew 2008 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Glad to extend/reduce if this is expected to blow over at a certain date. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:129.97.232.44 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection User talk of blocked user, vandalising talk page while blocked, semi protection requested.Momusufan (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - should get bored in that time. Was removing information important for other users of the IP. nancy (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Vandalism/disruption/POV all day long. Húsönd 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP-only edit war, how quaint. Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This could be a candidate for long-term semi. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This page should be protected as there have been many vandalism attempts recently. LukeTheSpook (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Húsönd 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. Indef-blocked user repeatedly using IPs to evade his block and add commercial messages to this article. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Transitguru. Two recent and brief semi-protections effective, but user keeps readding commercial plug after protection expires. This is a disambiguation page that gets very little real editing, so a long semi-protection may make the spammer go away with very little harm done. Darkspots (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator by Flyguy649.. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this again This turns out not to be the case. I've rolled back the same transitguru edits twice today. Flyguy649 gave this a very short protection time, which expired 19 March. Darkspots (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Infinite semi protect too many issues when left unprotected. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry, but, considering this is a hugely popular page, most of it is low-level (blanking, childish stuff, etc.) and is being reverted very quickly. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. High level of IP Vandalism since it was unprotected automatically. It only li<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">kely to get worse with the current state of "Affairs". Mrprada911 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Travistalk 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, It was semi-protected yesterday due to edit-warring over the album cover by IPs and newly registered accounts; however the edit warring seems to have continued by accounts that are over the autoconfirmed limit. Request full protection for a few days until someone actually discusses this [and hopefully by then an official cover will have been released on Amazon or the like for confirmation of the actual cover]. I just reported one of the people on one side for 3RR. Jeez this edit war is lame.. -- Naerii 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. 24 hours per 3RR report. —Travistalk 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd ask you to reconsider, as edit warring is continuing [1] [2] [3]. -- Naerii 00:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Travistalk 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Increase of vandalism from IP addresses. AngelOfSadness talk 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of persistant IP vandalism. Dmol (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A hard decision, but for now declined — because there is not enough disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. Rudget. 12:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Anonymous editors are keep editing without discussion. There were so many vandalism occured in last few days. Some editors the article without enough sources. {Angelians (talk) 00:39, 21 March 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.

    Unprotect. Another editor created the page Mech Quest and I have cleaned up to the video game project's standards. I would like to now move Mech Quest to MechQuest. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected —Travistalk 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war is completely over and the topic has been discussed throughly on the talk page. A new set of paragraphs have been worked out and I am just waiting to insert them. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk)

    Done—downgraded to semi by Keilana. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 20 March 2008 (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 - IP user doing.... I honestly have no clue what the hell he's doing. I don't know if it qualifies as vandalism, but it is annoying and needs to stop. He made a minor edit (changing the number of losses she has from 182 to the incorrect 183) and is repeatedly changing it back and forth between the two numbers. Dlong (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Recent high increase of vandalism from IP addresses.. AngelOfSadness talk 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GBT/C 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Tile Join (known as the Genesis vandal), sockpuppets of Tile Join are vandalising this page and the talk page not sure what kind of protection it may need, but I guess semi-protection..Momusufan (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to the registered accounts which are vandalising. Fully-protected for 2 days. Rudget. 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection , This is a page on a subject that's likely to be deluged with a flood of OR over the coming days/weeks, as press launches, rumours and leaks... erm... leak. All of the unacceptable material - and very little valid stuff - comes from IPs; I suggest a week's semi-protection..—TreasuryTag—t—c 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Better still, reinstate the indef semi-protection. Unprotecting was, unfortunately, a disaster. Will (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call; I'd still recommend a longer one now I'm not in a minority :-D —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree, and going by the past logs, the page is a bit of a problem. Let's see how this goes, and if it comes back straight after unprotection, bring directly here or to my talk page. Thanks, Rudget. 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - getting a fair amount of vandalism today; generally a regular target. WLU (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Rudget. 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Repeated reverts to invalid article (actor link to unrelated page (despite hidden comment that the article in question is incorrect) removal of valid links etc.) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 3 days, continual edit-warring after page was just un-protected for the same thing. Tiptoety talk 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, due to the nature of this articles content, it has experienced persistent anonymous vandalism. I think we should try a temp semi-prot to see if this calms things down, if not, go indefinite.--Finalnight (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 17 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 17:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protect High levels of IP vandalism. Spiesr (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. This article has a significant history of vandalism from a variety of IPs. With the exception of a major rewrite of the article, almost all recent activity in the article consists of vandalism and reverts. Cplakidas (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tiptoety talk 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prioritism (talk • contribs)

    Declined Current protection expires in 7 hours anyway - is there any real reason for bringing this forward? GBT/C 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Contant vandalism and insertion of nonsense from IPs which doesn't seem to be getting countered in time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.MECU≈talk 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect - I've been working on this article for a few months now and I've noticed that there is periodic vandalism (particularly homophobic vandalism) posted by anonymous users that's disruptive and unnecessary. The latest round of such vandalism occurred on 18 March by 79.67.56.71 (see revision history). Registered users do not commit this type of vandalism, of course, so I was hoping to have this article semi-protected so that anonymous users cannot edit. Thank you for your consideration. --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.MECU≈talk 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full-protection. There has been so much discussion on whther an image should be there or not. One side has submitted image for deletation 2 times, once image stayed and second round is under going still. There is a possible compromise suggested fairly recently. Regardless one side wants to make the changes regardless. A temp protection may help both sides to cool-off and reach an agreement. Farmanesh (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Was protected a while back for edit warring; this has died down (as has most discussion...) so I'm hoping that, if unprotected, there won't be any new warring. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected GBT/C 13:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - blocked user has created numerous sockpuppets in the past and appears to be harrassing other users. Igniateff (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Rudget. 12:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=199735920"