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
Line 18: Line 18:
==== {{la|Patbingsu}} ====
==== {{la|Patbingsu}} ====
'''full protection''' ''Dispute'', See the discussion regarding the images below the food box..[[User:Mindme|Mindme]] ([[User talk:Mindme|talk]]) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
'''full protection''' ''Dispute'', See the discussion regarding the images below the food box..[[User:Mindme|Mindme]] ([[User talk:Mindme|talk]]) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|b}} Will keep an eye on this. [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|talk]]) 02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)



===={{la|Coheed and Cambria}}====
===={{la|Coheed and Cambria}}====

Revision as of 02:00, 20 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 Dispute, See the discussion regarding the images below the food box..Mindme (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Will keep an eye on this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: There have been many IPs recently that removed the "emo" genre from the infobox. I have explained in the talk page and in my edit summaries that this is a fully sourced genre and should stay, but IP users continue to ignore the comments stating not to edit the genre. I'm guessing this should only be temporary, as it didn't happen before the genre was added in. I don't want to break 3RR, so I thought it would be better to temporarily protect the article. I don't know if this is enough to semi-protect the page, but I figured it's better than getting myself blocked. Should I report this somewhere else instead? — FatalError 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Repeated insertion of unsourced disparaging info violating WP:BLP by several anon IPs, at least two of which are associated with the same editor and which have continued despite repeated blocks on one of the anons.  RGTraynor  20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - just not enough to warrant sprotection, last 50 stretch back to before June. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    High level of link vandalism by random anom. IPs,possible open proxies, can protect? scienceisyourfriend (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. AngelOfSadness talk 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could my userpage be semi-protected to stop the vandals? Thanks. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. GbT/c 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Since the previous semi-protection was listed, the article has once more been a vandal target..Latics 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety talk 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Different IP and newly registered user is trying to add wrong information and delete valuable information on regular basis..NAHID 18:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety talk 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, The SAME Ip has vandalized this article about 4-6 times, added sexual libellous vandalism, repeatedly. They have continued to revert good edits and identifiying them as vandalism. Crash Underride 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Anon IP vandalising the article but bypasses the block by chaning IP's..Bidgee (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by The wub (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety talk 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Too much vandalism taking place on this page, especially since it's a featured article and a popular article..~Milnivri~ 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month. Tiptoety talk 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection High-visible template, used for linking categories.frogger3140 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection High-visible template.frogger3140 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not used so much because it's subst'd. Semi'd to prevent vandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection High-visible template.frogger3140 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not used so much because it's subst'd. Semi'd to prevent vandalism. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:15, 19 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.

    Currently, the article for Ronald Jenkees has been deleted and protected from being re-added. I'm not sure what the arguments where against it existing, perhaps he was too new at the time and hadn't gained his current fame. But he seems to be well known now. His tunes are now available on iTunes, Amazon, and Rhapsody. He has also been linked to from ESPN and was interviewed by a few people. One of the guys in the wikipedia IRC channel even said that he liked his music when I mentioned that I wanted to unprotect his article. So I think he is significant enough to have an article. Thanks. -- Suso (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected - WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to have an article. Google News comes up empty, suggesting that he hasn't achieved enough notability yet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just to add a bit more references to him showing up in the media. here is the article on ESPN where he gets a mention. According to Ronald Jenkee's [ bio page], he was given the oppurtunity to write the theme song for Bill Simmons' podcast. And from listening to the podcast, it actually sounds like Ronald's voice at the beginning doing the intro. And according to some comments on youtube, one of his videos appeared on Youtube's front page once. So, coming from a neutral stance, I think that makes him mildly notable. The fact that he has over a million channel views and several of his videos have received a half million to 2 million views kinda shows that he is popular. -- Suso (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone unprotect this or fix the double redirect? (Linkin Park Underground is also a redirect) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done (the double redirect, that is). Hut 8.5 18:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is currently a page for him at Ryan Higa (YouTube comedian), but it doesn't make sense to have a page for him there and not at Ryan Higa, which is protected. I feel the page should not be deleted because he's one of the most watched users on YouTube, and there has been some media coverage of him [1], and he has a Hollywood film expected to come out next year, so I feel deletion is not the right decision. I believe Ryan Higa should be unprotected so his current page can be moved to this. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 05:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected - I don't think he's notable enough; Google News comes up empty. Ryan Higa (YouTube comedian) only exists because the article couldn't be created at Ryan Higa. I've nominated Ryan Higa (YouTube comedian) for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's at #2 as the most subscribed comedian of all time, and number one of most subscribed comedian of this month. So what if Google News comes up empty? The Honolulu Advertiser, one of Hawaii's biggest newspapers, has an online article about him being in a Hollywood movie. I believe that is enough to qualify for notability. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 23:06, 19 August 2008 (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.

    There is a necessary edit to make on this page, which provides misinformation on NBA history. In fact, the page appears to have been protected in the first place due to an edit war involving the change that needs to be made. However, there was no type of discussion - by either party involved - on the talk page made during that edit war, which perhaps explains why the page was protected in the first place.

    Declined What specifically do you want the administrators to add? -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that you misunderstand. There is not a need for an addition, but rather a piece of content should be removed from the page because it does not actually belong there. A particular player's season is listed there when it is not acknowledged by the NBA in its record books. For some more detail, I have commented on this on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.252.152 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deferring to another administrator here as this involves editing a section previously the focus of an edit-war. I'm unwilling to make the change, but it does sound reasonable. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So what happens now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.252.152 (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll have to wait for another administrator. Another suggestion I could make is to use {{editprotected}} on the talk page and be specific about the edit you want to make; RFPP is rather sleepy at times. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    temporary semi-protection, repeated removal of valid edits without reason by user with shared IP addresses. Warning was given to one IP address but has since repeated action with another address. --Carl weathers bicep (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 12 hours. Multiple IP's being used. — Satori Son 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection , Article has been under attack over the past 2 weeks by a floating IP range that is altering content (including adding false content) which ignores all previous discussion and consensus over the format of the article..Libs (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three weeks. Tan ǀ 39 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection requested specifically Second request. This article has been the subject of an IP editor whose IP changes regularly, and will not listen to reasons for the reversions by multiple editors. There's no articles on the web to support it, no comic issue to support it, and he won't stop, it's been days now. Because the problematic editor vandalizes from different a IP each day, a block is a waste of everyone's time. Please actually read what's been written this time. thank you.

    So we block a range, possibly precluding other editors, when we can lock up ONE page to SEMI when that's the only page the IP goes for? What the hell. nevermind. I'll just keep cleaning up multiple times a day, and I'll point tot he inaction here when the IP tries to get me for a 3RR violation. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi=Prot This article has been the subject of an IP editor whose IP changes regularly, and will not listen to reasons for the reversions by multiple editors. There's no articles on the web to support it, no comic issue to support it, and he won't stop, it's been days now. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. —EncMstr (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I asked for. I asked for page protection because the editor jumps IPs. ThuranX (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't always get what we ask for... Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protect. Persistent edit-warring by IP's and new users in relation to the apparent User:Light current RefDesk troll. Franamax (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, it's done [2]. Franamax (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, just done it. Feel free to unprotect whenever. No expiry set to prevent move protection from lapsing... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (tagging so the bot will archive this section) Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    unprotection , Article has been protected since Feb. 2008; among the last 50 edits none have been identified as vandalism.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Stifle (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war is over, 68.4.176.68 (talk) hasn't edit for a long time. --75.47.144.164 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Spam fight with a dynamic IP address..Themfromspace (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. Edit-warring continues at this page. Can we get some help please? --Clubjuggle T/C 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —EncMstr (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    move protection I don't know if this the right place, but there is a user moving the page without discussion, i moved it to the original title, but he or she moved it to a different title twice already. BlueRed 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected —EncMstr (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The last three days has seen IP editors restore material that doesn't comply with two policies. The article had a large amount of external links in the body of the article (myspace links and others) and an equal amount of radio show schedule information. I've used the article talk page and several anonymous ip user pages to educate the users on the content policies, but have had little success. E_dog95' Hi ' 04:06, 19 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 04:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , The vandalism-to-edit ratio on this page is high of late. It's one of our more commonly used notability guidelines, and thus has a rather high profile. Changes to this page need to reflect consensus, so anonymous editors should be writing at the talk page instead of the guideline page anyhow. .RayAYang (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. An ongoing issue of IP-based edits removing/adding/deleting/updating the template regarding the John Carter From Mars entry. Various talk page discussions on whether it is or isn't a Pixar production have taken place hasn't stopped the editors from going crazy and making their own decisions. Thank you. SpikeJones (talk) 23:34, 18 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 04:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection. Article was previous protected due to Olympic surge. The lock has been off for a grand total of 12 hours and the IP vandals are back in force. DanielEng (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection High-visible template, used in csd.frogger3140 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - high-risk template - Alison ❤ 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=233027198"