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
→‎Current requests for protection: req. semiprot for Nebraska
→‎{{la|Nebraska}}: already protected
Line 17: Line 17:
===={{la|Nebraska}}====
===={{la|Nebraska}}====
'''semi-protect'''. Repeated new user attacks of the page. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|<sub>contribs]]</sub> 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
'''semi-protect'''. Repeated new user attacks of the page. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|<sup>talk]]</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|<sub>contribs]]</sub> 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|ap}} --[[User:DarkFalls|<strong><font color="black" face="Comic Sans Ms">Dark<font color="green">Falls</font></font></strong>]] <sup>[[User talk:DarkFalls|talk]]</sup> 06:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

===={{la|Great Pyramid of Giza}}====
===={{la|Great Pyramid of Giza}}====
'''semi-protect'''. The regular IP vandalism that we have to protect against from time to time has returned. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
'''semi-protect'''. The regular IP vandalism that we have to protect against from time to time has returned. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:38, 27 August 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 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.

    semi-protect. Repeated new user attacks of the page. Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. --DarkFalls talk 06:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The regular IP vandalism that we have to protect against from time to time has returned. --Ronz 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a month. Let's see if that's long enough. If not, re-request here. - Philippe | Talk 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    'Indefinite semi-protect. Excessive IP vandalism, almost all of it refers to the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. Let's see if it dies down. Re-request here if necessary. - Philippe | Talk 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Excessive IP vandalism. -- Satori Son 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. WjBscribe 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Excessive IP vandalism. -- Satori Son 02:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect. I created a /SHA subpage where I put the User_committed_identity template, in order to protect my account. I'd like to lock that page, so no one else can edit my SHA code, and can easily be checked in case my account is stolen. Thanks in advance. Nineko 02:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I'm not sure that this is necessary to protect your identity. The current revision will always be in the page's history and it would be obvious if someone tampered with it. WjBscribe 03:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected WP:PROT states that users can request indefinite semi-protection of their user pages so I have done that. Full protection is not a good idea since you wouldn't even be able to edit it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks. Nineko 03:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. The article keeps being vandalized by anonymous users; IPs are mostly vandalizing the article. Too much reverting. I think the article needs to be protected. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. WjBscribe 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User was blocked indefinitely, and is now spewing garbage on his talk page. Requesting page blanking/replacement with {{indefblocked}} and semi or full protection on his talk page to stop the garbage. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anonymous users repeatedly (despite numerous reversions) adding a section on non surgical treatments - at best original research, at worst a scam. 2 IP addresses used to date, could just block these I guess, though they'd probably just use others. Brianpie 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Anonymous user continuously editing article with material copied from the official website. Article looks like a promo.Artiste-extraordinaire 09:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Protection doesn't seem necessary - the excess info added by IPs is being paired down so its (a) a reasonable size and (b) not a copyvio, which seems an appropriate response. There also seem to have been good edits by IPs so I don't see any reason to lock them out at this point. WjBscribe 00:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.

    Article has protected since March 4 with little vandalism. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has protected since March 6 with little vandalism. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has protected since February 26. There is no longer any reason for protection. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has protected since March 7. There is no longer any reason for protection. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been protected since May 4. There is no longer any reason for protection. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined it's under arbcom ruling. - Philippe | Talk 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been protected since May 17 with little vandalism. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been protected since April 2 with little vandalism in recent months. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been protected since April 15 with little vandalism. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been protected since April 18 with little activity. American Patriot 1776 00:41, 27 August 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect for a period of 6 months to indefinite. This is my fourth request for page protection on this article. It is triggered everyday highly by IP vandals, and the instant it's unblocked, it's vandalized. I believe a four month block was just lifted, and I believe that this article deserves, at LEAST, six months semi protected. If you think indefinite is in order, then please, be my guest. Signed by Tommy (Talk/Contribs) 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 23:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Too much vandalism. Suspected sock puppeting, new IPs blindly reverting, edit wars, etc. Controversial article, hopefully it can be protected for a while.Taharqa 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected I don't see how semi-protection will help here. There is a pretty clear edit/revert war going on there. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However, isn't a month-long full protection a little bit much? Just asking.--Ramdrake 21:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the dispute is resolved earlier, request unprotection. I counted at least 18 reverts on August 26 though, in just a 12 hour period. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level vandalism. He's a prominent England and Chelsea footballer and his abuse name 'Fat Frank' or variations appear every day, often more than once. I've been watching for about a 10 days and its consistent.Operating 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Office Protection. This is due to complaints from the article's subject about themselves - and they want it locked until the complaints are dealt with. Posted on behalf of Girls Aloud. Marpessick 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: WP:OFFICE actions are carried out by the WP:OFFICE, not via requests at WP:RFPP. You could try WP:OTRS first. I could protect the article in the interim while you guys sort the problems out, but not as an OFFICE action. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure this is appropriate without more reason. Not liking how they are described is a motivation to edit it, fix it, and seek WP:DR if there are strong voices unreasonably opposing good content. Protection is not a first recourse to BLP subjects who have concerns over their respective articles. That is not what protection is for, nor is protection used to stop others editing undesired content (unless obviously vandalistic). Office isn't a way to bypass usual criteria and process for resolving article issues except in exceptional cases; no visible signs of behavior justifying protection over the last week. Nonetheless their concerns may be legitimate and genuine, and certainly deserve respect, so some clarification might be in order:
    1. Ask them to clarify their request - what exactly they want (or object to),
    2. Make sure they know (in simple terms) how Wikipedia works/doesn't work, and about communally supported approaches for this situation (I'm assuming they are not familiar with this).
    3. Point them to pages that describe how to more productively handle correcting a selfref article that contains content the subject doesn't feel is right, and
    4. Identify if there is a real legitimate problem not being seen that does actually require protection, such as actual current and heavy vandalism. I'm not yet seeing it if there is.
    FT2 (Talk | email) 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about crossposting:

    Can you fully lock the article, and all its related ones (Sarah Harding, Nicola Roberts, Kimberley Walsh, Nadine Coyle) in the interim, and take it to WP:OFFICE for me please. Posted on behalf of Girls Aloud, --Marpessick 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot "take it to WP:OFFICE". You will need to make a specific complaint first, via OTRS. I cannot see how protecting an article will help solve the band's complaints when there is no ongoing disruption that I can see which might add to their problems. If it is existing material that is harmful, bring this up on the talkpage. Your main recourse really is an OTRS complaint - and a specific one. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see from your talk page that you state you "work for Girls Aloud". Welcome, and let's try to help sort it out if you like. In which case I would be glad to help you. We can discuss this on the Wiki itself, for example on the Girls Aloud Talk Page (strongly suggested: probably the best place as others will be able to see the discussion and add comments), or you can email me (the link is in my signature) to discuss at length if unsure. I'll do what I can to help, let me know if that'd help. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Marpessick, as I said before, WP:OTRS would be your best course of action. Or e-mailing an admin privately, including but not limited to FT2 and myself. Without a specific complaint, you really give us nothing we can act upon (you mention Daniel Brandt - Mr Brandt's complaint was very specific). ~ Riana ⁂ 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined as that's my interpretation of the above comments from other administrators (and to aid the archival bot). Various ways to contact Wikipedia and resolve problems can be found at Wikipedia:Contact us, including resolving disputes--Chaser - T 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Article keeps being vandalised by anonymous user who deletes reliable references and adds unsourced material; they are not likely to stop any time soon. BLP policy really needs to be upheld on this one. Seraphim Whipp 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this is almost entirely one IP, please report it on WP:AIV. This is not a denial, I am not an admin, but protection doesn't seem necessary. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie doke. Thanks for the assessment :-). Seraphim Whipp 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I'll look into this and may block the IP, but it doesn't require protection.--Chaser - T 19:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I went to post a message on this talk. Its transcluded and protected. Please fix. Navou banter 18:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined He has apparently left Wikipedia. The last time he did so was temporary, so he may be back. I've protected his talk page directly and left a note about what's going on. Sorry about the mess.--Chaser - T 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know, I'm still confused as the contributions and logs indicate to the contrary. But none the less, I hope everything turns out ok. Navou banter 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he deleted his whole userspace. That's commonly happens when people leave WP.--Chaser - T 19:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection Full scale revert war (7 users and 2 IPs identified as proxies & banned) and no discussion on talk page. Anonimu 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Judging by previous prot's this might not be enough, but I'm giving you guys the benefit of the doubt here - please use the talk. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. This page invariably undergoes vandalism multiple times per day, making it difficult to maintain at FA quality. It has received semi-protect before (I think more than once), but the vandalism immediately returns when the protection is removed. — RJH (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reluctant to give it longer than that, highly visible article ~ Riana ⁂ 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Various IP addresses are blanking the same section of this page repeatedly since 23 August 2007. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 14:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. This seems like a high-risk template and should be protected as such, true? Pianette7 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This template is not being transcluded too often. Folks are supposed to use the DEFAULTSORT: not DEFAULTSORT|. The former is a special keyword, not a template. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect against the persistent vandalism today alone.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has been protected since 15 March. In the meantime, many events have occurred, especially the U.S. Congress made a resolution to demand Japanese government to apology about the comfort women officially, but Japanese government declined it.

    In the article, there are many factual errors that are not based on historical facts, and many editors pointed them out. In the discussion page, I corrected them and listed up the historical facts, and nobody objected with new evidence. Most editors seem to agree with my coclusion. So, at least, unlock this article as semi-protection. Ikedanobuo 12:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Please change to Semi-Protection. IP user is vandalizing and appropriate warnings cannot be left by non-admin users. -- Satori Son 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - Unprotected by User:RockMFR --Richard 05:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Semi-protect. Much IP vandalism, some including sneaky. Probably only needed for maybe 12 hours. / edg ☺ ★ 10:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ten days have passed since sprot was applied to this article after just a few unhelpful edits and no Admin action to apply user blocking as a first remedy. I asked the Admin who applied sprot to set an earlier expiration, but my request was declined. The article's editors have not reached any consensus on what is a reasonable duration for sprot. By this request, I am asking Admins to be as active in supporting "anyone can edit" as they have been in applying semi-protection. --HailFire 10:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected ~ Riana ⁂ 10:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=153899594"