Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.241.219.79 (talk) at 14:11, 24 February 2008 (→{{la|Malta}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.

    Propaganda/POV dispute (in which I admit to being involved) over the importance of languages in the country. Requesting temporary semi-protection so that dialogue can take place on the talk page, or have the case put up for 3O or RFC if unsuccessful. CounterFX (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no real need to as the dispute is only between that user and I, and the paragraph over which we are disputing is not even in the text anymore anyway, until we reach discussional conclusion. Either way, i have already expressed my views at the discussion page and am awaiting their response. Thank you 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Another editor has also commented on the matter at Talk:Malta#Languages, and the dispute dates back at least to February 2; see [1]. CounterFX (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not the content in dispute however. The content that is in dispute is in the talk page right now. If you actually have any interest in the article CounterFX, then please continue the discussion rather than going on about events which are not even relevant. I am trying to provide a neutral point of view, and so should you be. Thank you. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection There is constant vandalism edits and bots and genuine users are constantly reverting them to sustain the integrity of this article. REZTER TALK ø 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Only one IP vandalizing on any of the 5 recent days. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Continuous vandalism - the last 50 edits over 9 days reveals just 2 useful changes (a wikilink and a rephrasing); all the rest are vandalism & reverts. Similar story with the previous fifty. Bots and genuine editors are mostly keeping up, but the occasional vandalism slips through longer term. Canthusus (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected · AndonicO Hail! 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection The article has results and league tables for the current season of the Premier League.

    Anonymous and new users (read: accounts created specifically for editing this page one afternoon) repeatedly edit the article every weekend after games are played to vandalize scores, standings, and other information.

    The sheer volume of edits makes reverting them difficult, which means every Monday or Tuesday someone has to go back through all of the different sections to find out what information is correct and what information is vandalism.

    It seems as though people get upset about poor results for their team and take it out on this poor article and the dedicated community that is working on it.

    Grant.alpaugh (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. · AndonicO Hail! 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full-protection User CChungg is repeatedly trying to add an external link to an outside commercial entity (Luna Development) which would violate WP:EL.

    Their edits on the discussion page for this article fail to provide a notability basis why this single company merits the citation.

    However, the most damning pile, would be the following in concert: (a) the user's history of edits (this page and QR Code) (b) the user's comments on the talk page for user JeremyA, concerning QR Code, and citing (shockingly) Luna Development.

    I don't think it's a stretch to say that the user has a commercial agenda and this page should be locked for a few days to discourage their behaviour. Quaeler (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Single editor issue should be taken to WP:RSN or WP:SPAM. MBisanz talk 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection significant recent vandalism by anonymous IP users. - Zhukora (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last vandalism was two days ago...GBT/C 08:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temp semi-protection revert war by IPs and new users Blogmalayalam (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection IP vandalism is still happening on this page at heavy rates. It has not stopped. Footballfan190 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Anons (probably the same person) vandalized the page by adding a vanity profile. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. · AndonicO Hail! 11:13, 24 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]

    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.

    This template is neither high use nor high risk, and shouldn't be permanently protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Please contact the protecting admin. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:59, 24 February 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.

    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]

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

    Would like to request the entire contents of talk:Douglasfgrego be deleted/purged. I am going to be looking for a new job soon, and the talk:Douglasfgrego is the first to appear on a google search of douglasfgrego. The content within has the potential to negatively influence a hiring decision. Additionally, the account has been placed on indefinite block, there is no indication this block will be lifted, and the entry to which the exchange refers has been deleted. There is no benefit to Wikipedia in preserving this, and the detrimental effect on me is potentially massive. --76.15.160.99 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Maybe that all should have been thought out before the user in question performed the actions that got it blocked. The page has a useful history, thus it will not be deleted, and I see no need to lift the protection due to the abuse of the talk page. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After discussion with Gonzo Fan2007, we have agreed that if the IP agrees here to cease editing (and comply with his community ban) then User:Douglasfgrego will be deleted and User talk:Douglasfgrego will be courtesy blanked. Note that the right to vanish is confined to users in good standing, but we will offer this as a courtesy. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I request that genmay redirect to HardOCP#General_Mayhem.

    I don't know the backstory with General Mayhem and Wikipedia, but I can see that it's protected because it's been vandalized and deleted repeatedly. Regardless, it makes sense to me for the article to redirect to HardOCP#General_Mayhem instead of not existing at all. A forum that has 22 million posts at least deserves a redirect to a paragraph that explains where it came from. OK, the users spam their forums for fun. I mean to say that there's an extant paragraph in the [H]ard|OCP article that has lived peacefully for some time, so it seems reasonable to redirect. Mbelisle (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I request that General Mayhem redirect to HardOCP#General_Mayhem, for the same reason given above for genmay. Mbelisle (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    temp semi-protection edit war going on between two users - see talk page - they have changed the article back and forth between versions around 9 times each or more.PhySusie (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection won't do the job cause they are both users using accounts. However, I have Fully protected the article for a period of 5 days for discussion of such edit wars. — E talk 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temp semi-protect B-tard invasion HalfShadow (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by SirFozzie (talk) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:71.191.48.27 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, Blocked user trolling on talk page..... discospinster talk 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Having witnessed vandalism on an almost daily basis over the past 6 months, with very little useful content being added by anon IP's to this Good article, I question whether it makes any sense to leave this unprotected.скоморохъ 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Indefinite is very rarely ever used. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not likely to be created often anymore because of the change in default signatures of IPs. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected That has to be the greatest deletion log ever, haha. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Kraft. (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - Appears to be a lot of content disputes from IPs. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Kraft. (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Anon IPs in a revert war. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection One anonymous editor gets blocked, another one pops up. Seeing a lot of libel/defamation about in this article that is a biography of a living person. Repeated image vandalism. Increased vandalism to the article due to a campaign launched by a competing radio DJ calling his listeners to vandalize this page. All vandalism has been done by IP users. Ihateaubergine (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection For over a week, this page has been vandalized by several anons (probably just two persons) by replacing the name of the actress with their own. Please consider this before this article gets vandalized again. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:Gavin.collins (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, getting pounded by vandal(s) with multiple IPs.Dethme0w (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Protected it right after you reverted. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.– nh.jg 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: Only one IP was vandalizing. Has been blocked. (talk · contribs). -- Alexf42 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection -- Despite talk-page consensus, a few editors -- and now a single editor running from different IPs -- is restoring citations to unreliable sources, deprecated infobox fields, etc. It was kind of a trickle the last few days, but a devoted gnat is going hard core this evening. --EEMIV (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection -- There have been many acts of vandalism to this article for the last week by multiple IPs. Instead of having to constantly revert this article, IPs should be prevented from editing (and usually vandalizing) this article. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert when necessary. Request for protection when there are many unproductive edits in one day. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protect Lots of vandalism from IP's and registered users; one established user today kept adding an inappropriate picture replacing the band image. I would say fully protect for 2 weeks. SchfiftyThree 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of until June 12008, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It looks like 90% of the vandalism is anonymous. Newly registered users cannot edit semi-protected articles, at least until their registration is four days old. I'll keep an eye on the article and block any recently registered users who vandalize. —EncMstr 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection Dispute, revert war.Rschen7754 (T C) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=193698789"