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
Uptownboy (talk | contribs)
371 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|Brother (Boyzone album)}} ====
'''semi-protection''' Main target of a regular sockpuppeteer, see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pesf/Archive]] for details--[[User:Uptownboy|Uptownboy]] ([[User talk:Uptownboy|talk]]) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
==== {{la|Boyzone discography}} ====
'''semi-protection''' Main target of a regular sockpuppeteer, see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pesf/Archive]] for details--[[User:Uptownboy|Uptownboy]] ([[User talk:Uptownboy|talk]]) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

==== {{la|Super Mario Sunshine}} ====
==== {{la|Super Mario Sunshine}} ====
'''semi-protection''' ''vandalism''. [[User talk:Reach Out to the Truth|Reach Out to the Truth]] 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
'''semi-protection''' ''vandalism''. [[User talk:Reach Out to the Truth|Reach Out to the Truth]] 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 13 March 2011

"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 Main target of a regular sockpuppeteer, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pesf/Archive for details--Uptownboy (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Main target of a regular sockpuppeteer, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pesf/Archive for details--Uptownboy (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Reach Out to the Truth 16:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three days. Acalamari 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Recent protection was for 3 days, perhaps this should go for longer (or generally on weekends)? Nczempin (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Reach Out to the Truth 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. Acalamari 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Reach Out to the Truth 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP vandalism at high level. Geoff Who, me? 16:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two months. Acalamari 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Upcoming event, gets a lot of traffic and I anticipate quite a bit of vandalism like last year. Semi-protection would be useful. MobileSnail 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, not a lot of vandalism. Pending changes might be worth a try, but it will probably get worse later. Feel free to come back if/when the vandalism picks up closer to the event. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Flurry of vandalism today. Geoff Who, me? 15:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Snowolf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Constent insertion of WP:COPYVIO content (that wouldn't be nearly appropriate even if it wasn't) by IP hopper and a couple of new accounts.. . Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 15:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, not a single constructive IP edit (other than reverting IP vandalism) since protection expired. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Acalamari 15:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Almost every IP edit is vandalism :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Acalamari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah...it seems I was too slow to mark this! Acalamari 15:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent (or long term) Semi Protection for vandalism. Just now I removed some vandalism[[1]] from this article. The vandalism had been in place since August 2010 [[2]]. There simply aren't enough people watching and regularly editing this article to catch this sort of thing, so I'm asking for it to be semi protected in the long term to ward off instances of this happening in the future. -danjel (talk to me) 10:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. SeaphotoTalk 08:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Bsadowski1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Francs2000 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection, This user has left Wikipedia. Ankit Maity 05:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, user talk pages are never fully protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 13 March 2011 (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.

    Unprotection, Editor changing capitalisation back in July 2009, seems unlikely to be Nangparbat as its a cricket related article about a British cricketer, which isn't Nangparbat's MO. Suggest unprotection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Not enough vandalism to warrant protection at this time - the main vandal seems to be someone who has vandalised before, but they don't appear to be pro-Pakistan/muslim (quite the opposite), so don't meet Nangparbat's MO.

    Suggest unprotection/pending changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Edited by Nangparbat, however in this case they were making the article more neutral - additionally Terrorism in India which the same IP also edited has been on pending changes for ages and doesn't appear to have been attacked by Nangparbat - just general vandals. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally the change made by Nangparbat is now in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, There look to be lots of good IP edits, first time indefinite protection in November 2009 - seems excessive at this time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, A reasonable number of non-vandalism edits as well as the vandalism ones as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, There wasn't a particularly high rate of vandalism, and a number of good IP edits, suggest unprotection as its been protected for over a year. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Lots of good IP edits, probably edited by Nangparbat too, suggest pending changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected Most country articles attract masses of vandalism and, if anything, Pakistan is likely to get more rather than less. I don't think PC would be effective here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Edited supposedly by Nangparbat, but its unclear that the IP in question was that editor, and multiple other registered editors edited the article in the meantime without believing the edit in question was particularly problematic. Lots of other good IP edits as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, I wouldn't normally suggest this as it was clearly vandalised by Nangparbat multiple times, however the same Nangparbat IP also vandalised Terrorism in India as much which is currently on pending changes (and which doesn't appear to have been attacked by Nangparbat - just general vandals). Suggest pending changes for this too, as there were quite a few other good edits as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, or pending changes - protected due to Nangparbat, but its not totally clear that the IP editor who edited the article was that user, the articles: Pakistan – Saudi Arabia relations and Terrorism in India which were edited by the same IP address have been reasonably successfully on pending changes (though Terrorism in India has attracted quite a lot of general vandalism). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Protected due to BLP issues, and the user in question was auto-confirmed at the time the protection was added. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. Four edit requests from non-autoconfirmed editors, none of them getting honoured any time soon. Autoconfirmed editors adding inconsiderate unsourced material. Please unprotect or turn on PC, thanks. Contacting protecting admin. 220.100.15.15 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected Worth a try, I suppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find PC protection on this article makes it worse. Now you have a mass of PC notifications flying in, and some acceptances are

    conflicting with attempts to build the article. I say get rid of the PC for now, put it back on semi-protect, and let registered editors build the article. The changes are coming fast and furious, and it's my feeling that PC makes it harder to edit. Thanks for considering this, Jusdafax 23:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    But "making it harder to edit" is not a valid reason to apply semi and there is not enough vandalism to justify semi at the minute. I'll unprotect it altogether if you prefer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would personally prefer unprotection over PC, the vandalism has certainly dropped off since there's been no major developments recently, but the changes are still coming very quickly, most of which are generally useful. There's nothing stopping applying semi or PC again if the vandalism picks back up - the page is watched enough that someone will come and request protection if it gets bad enough. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 04:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for 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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, sustained vandalism from various IPs and new accounts throughout this month, some of a distinctly defamatory nature. Fæ (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected I just gave it a week as it had been concerted the past four days or so. We can revisit afterwards if it recurs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Bunch of recent IP/non-autoconfirmed vandalism. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Courcelles 07:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Star Wars: The Old Republic is currently getting hit by extensive IP vandalism + one logged in user. Monty845 (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. one day by OlEnglish. AlexiusHoratius 06:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=418634389"