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
m Reverted 2 edits by Vitilsky. using Twinkle
RandomXYZb (talk | contribs)
15,343 edits
Line 87: Line 87:


: In addition to the above, I would like to add that {{diff|WP:Requests for page protection|231058629|231054744|vitilsky is stooping to defacing this page too}}, {{diff|WP:Requests for page protection|231076114|231075464|repeatedly}}. --[[User:Adoniscik|Adoniscik]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Adoniscik|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Adoniscik|c]])</small></sup> 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
: In addition to the above, I would like to add that {{diff|WP:Requests for page protection|231058629|231054744|vitilsky is stooping to defacing this page too}}, {{diff|WP:Requests for page protection|231076114|231075464|repeatedly}}. --[[User:Adoniscik|Adoniscik]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Adoniscik|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Adoniscik|c]])</small></sup> 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
::{{RFPP|nea}} Both of you stop it - edit warring over an article is bad enough, but if you continue to edit war over this page, of all places, then you'll both be blocked for disruption. Take it to the article's talk page. <sub>[[User:Gb|Gb]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Gb|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gb|c]]</sup> 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


===={{la|Islamic view of anal sex}}====
===={{la|Islamic view of anal sex}}====

Revision as of 21:13, 10 August 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.

    full protection - banned User:PaxEquilibrium is writing again and again on user page of his puppet (checkuser Thatcher report about KhoiKURČINA) that I am puppeteer. Because of that I am asking full protection of KhoiKURČINA user page and Pax puppet tag.--Rjecina (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Constant vandalism. Protection requested to prevent this issue.Chaldor (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection. Ongoing unconstructive edits. I'll just c/p from what I wrote on the talk page with slight edits: Given the events of last night, in which everyone was adding and subtracting medals due to mass confusion, perhaps we should ask the admins to create designated editors to update the medal count and put the page on full protect. Rationale:

    • This page should only be updated a few times each day. There are 13 medal events on Day 3 of the Games; therefore, there should be 13 edits to the medal table. Any other edits are not constructive and, depending on the severity, could be considered vandalism. (Obviously, page formatting and stuff would be different; however, that stuff should be discussed on the talk page anyway.)
    • The need to reliably disseminate accurate information is more important than letting any user edit in what they think is correct based on tape-delayed coverage, late reports, etc. A messed-up Olympic medal table reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

    Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Kingnavland (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While I doubt it will happen, I certainly wouldn't mind if it was protected. Last night editors were updating the count without checking to see if it had been updated already, so we were having the same set of medals included 2 or 3 times. This is currently a high profile page and having so many errors on it has drawn complaints on the talk page and makes wikipedia look bad. On the other hand, full protection would mean that only admins would be able to edit it, and that would prevent the page's regular editors (such as myself) from tweaking it. -- Scorpion0422 20:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, based on content volatility, redundant coverage, and the propensity for multiple counting based on same (at least until the Olympic Games have ended and updates are much less frequent). Dirc (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is a wiki. Full protection would be punitive and accomplish little. It's a current event, so it will have high traffic, but nothing in the history suggests it's deserving of full protection. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for one week — persistent IP vandalism. ~ Troy (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Happyme22 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection, Content deletion i continue to write about fergie in particular section "Fashion Designer & Model" and there is some user that continue to delete the part i've written. gio88 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined They appear to have issues with your failure to cite sources, and you appear to be in the minotiry. I suggest that you take it to the article's talk page. GbT/c 20:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Heavy anon vandalism today; I just found many pretty serious vandal additions that had been sitting in the article for several hours. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. WilliamH (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Ongoing vandalsim by anon ip user who has been blocked for ban evasion, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat. Knowledgeum :  Talk  19:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Sock blocked - if it's only one editor or IP, it's generally better to take it to WP:AIV. GbT/c 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Has been seeing a lot of vandalism this week from IPs..RedThunder 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism made by anon ip user. Anon ip user has been banned and continues making the same edits under a new ip address. Knowledgeum :  Talk  18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Constant repeated vandalism. Requesting temporary semi-protection to protect from vandals..Chaldor (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, constant historical ip vandalism.emerson7 16:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite protection is only granted in very extreme circumstances. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection, Content deletion and spam, various anonymous IPs periodically either add spam or delete cited/referenced sections on this Featured Article. When caught in time, such are easy enough to undo, but when missed before subsequent contributions, require substantial effort to either merge deleted sections back in or find and remove spam/unsourced materials. LeheckaG (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Various anonymous IPs keep adding unsourced/false information..Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. User:91.108.135.8 has been blocked for 31 hours. Please resubmit this if the vandalism continues. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite full protection Vandalism, This user is indef blocked for being a vandalism only account. I suggest putting a indef blocked template on the page once its protected. Thanks :-).John Sloan (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is fine; no need for censorship. The above editor is confused, and we are trying to work it out in the talk page. Feel free to participate in the debate. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the above, I would like to add that vitilsky is stooping to defacing this page too, repeatedly. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Both of you stop it - edit warring over an article is bad enough, but if you continue to edit war over this page, of all places, then you'll both be blocked for disruption. Take it to the article's talk page. GbT/c 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection This article shows the view of different scholars in Islam, so people tends to simply remove any text that contradicts their thought, they remove the Ahadith that allows it, and insists that anal sex is disallowed but actually the topic of anal sex in islam is unclear and some has Ahadith that allows it, and others have Ahadith that disallow it. so this topic needs to be locked from anonymously unspecialized editings. 2:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    So... you mean semi-protection? Enigma message 15:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. OK, one edit since July 10. That doesn't qualify for any kind of protection whatsoever. Enigma message 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection A previous request was denied (understandably) a couple days ago, but I'm requesting again. An editor using several different IPs keeps adding information before a footnote that is not supported by the footnote and is, frankly, irrelevant. Multiple reverts (I'd guess about 9 by now) and the editor is not reachable by talk pages (including the article's). Note that the article is at GA status and I'm worried about its quality being compromised. Thanks for considering. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:45, 10 August 2008 (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.

    Administrator has protected page even though there is proof of his death.please unprotect page.CMJMEM (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Already unprotected by the admin in question. 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    Unprotect. Transcribed from WP:ANI: I would like a review of the full-protection of September 11, 2001 attacks. User:El C protected it after User:Presumptive went on a spree of five reversions. He was finally blocked for 12 hours to cool off. Then, another user, User:Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats reverted an old edit by User:Aude and El C protected it, citing 10 reversions (including 3 by me). The issue, though, is these users claimed to be upholding "consensus" single-handedly in cases where they have not made a suitable argument. For example, Presumptive claims I never engaged in discussion and, so, his revisions were consensus by silence. But, I did ask him how his versions could supercede WP:LEAD and he never responded. Fancy Cats never engaged in discussion on the talk page. Instead, he claimed to have 'consensus' somehow. As written in WP:PPOL, Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking (which it has in the case of Presumptive), so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. Please help me with this. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Official_Notice_of_Blocking and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_issue_warnings_for_improper_reverts_to_9.2F11. Thanks-- Veggy (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There were several people edit warring, not just User:Presumptive. Protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. Please seek resolution of the disputed areas by discussing them on the articles talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind letting me know who those people were? Because if you're referring to the group of editors that countered Presumptive and Fancy cats' edits, we have discussed these issues constantly and have established a consensus based on the arbitration decision to prevent the promotion of factually-questionable wording or material. There are over forty-two talk page archives of discussions regarding these issues. Can two editors come in and disrupt the work of others and then have this work be denied from all? -- Veggy (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotect. The Masters of Horror collection of articles is undergoing significant work (see the various talk pages) and having this article protected hampers that significantly. I do not believe that User:Collectonian had sufficient cause for requesting protection. Artw (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UnprotectedJerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:22, 10 August 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.

    Adding support for a new task force. Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I'm sorry, what? Please use {{editprotected}} on the talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please insert names: Angelique Carrington, Tamara Harrington. --58.178.140.39 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – No. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Fully protected due to ongoing edit warring. Sarah 11:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:99.145.216.62 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, Blocked user removes IP sock tags from his page (multiple times already).E Wing (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - as long as block. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full-protection Edit-warring. Enigma message 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a talk page discussion for 13-14 days with limited participation but 1 of 7 versions picked for the lead. There is edit warring to use a non-consensus version that other say has style, WP:LEAD violations, and bad prose. If protected, the version of the 13 day consensus (recently added and reverted away) should be used, not the aggressive changing to the non-consensus view. Either that or leave the warning template there. Presumptive (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit-warring is the result of disruptive editing by the above user. Please see the report at WP:AN3RR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done — I just blocked someone for 3RR at that article; but I notice that reverting continues. El_C 08:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't see how one user's flagrant violation of 3RR and another's word changes qualify the article for full protection. -- Veggy (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing there were about 10 reverts in the last day or two (including 3 reverts by yourself), I thought it reasonable to grant the request. El_C 08:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi protection Vandalism, repeated vadalism from anon ips.Rtphokie (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Aude (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection --Niggle (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I see IP's make good faith edits, which are positive contributions that outweigh the amount of vandalism which appears manageable. If the situation changes, go ahead and make another request here. --Aude (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, High-Profile target for vandals. Thanks..H2H (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Aude (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full-protection Continual vandalism war between IP editors, now they have switched to using fresh user accounts, and signing up for new accounts after they get blocked. Appears to be one parties adding nonsense, then the other vandalises it. 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    Semi-protected, in addition to the accounts and one of the IPs being blocked. Khoikhoi 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full-protection the Page is presently being used a a medium to flame other users of a particuler mediation case. See examples hereand here. I (the mediator) placed some ground rules on the mediation, that page was being used to throw punches behind my back. I can see no reason for discussion there whilst the article is dispute protected and would like the same thing to be done so that all talk occurs on the mediation page, where it can be kept cool and calm.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but we typically don't fully protect talk pages. If the offending users persist in making personal attacks and/or uncivil remarks, they should probably be blocked instead. No reason to fully protect a talk page due to only a few users engaging in a flame war. Khoikhoi 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Declined —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    protect continuous edit war. --Namsos (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to ongoing edit warring. Khoikhoi 05:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    My userpage doesn't need protecting. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Your user page was protected as a result of you adding yourself repeatedly to a parent category. Please respond to the blocking admin on your talk page and/or resubmit this once the thread at WP:ANI has come to a resolution. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty certain that the ANI thread is at the resolution that non-disruptive user pages/categories do not need to be policed. The edit warring against my wishes on my userpage is belligerently pushing the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotect Needed to create a redirect to Amity Regional High School as a variant common name of the school. Restoring previous request as it was removed without any action. --Polaron | Talk 03:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done I have already created the redirect. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection: Heavy IP vandalism, and getting worse. Long-term problem; long-term protection, please. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection: It was denied below for being pre-emptive, but since then vandalism has increased. There have been IPs trying to make good faith edits by adding events that have been added already which is also causing problems. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect Was blocked for an edit war consisting of like, four edits. Said edit war is now resolved. Suigetsu 01:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Spambot target, Spam and edit warring..Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=231093261"