Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 53: Line 53:
===={{la|Gaelcholáiste Reachrann}}====
===={{la|Gaelcholáiste Reachrann}}====
'''Indefinite semi-protection''' ''vandalism'', All IP edits in first page of history is vandalism by kids. Non notable school, so vandalism remains a long time. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2009-03-30[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]21:47z 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
'''Indefinite semi-protection''' ''vandalism'', All IP edits in first page of history is vandalism by kids. Non notable school, so vandalism remains a long time. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2009-03-30[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]21:47z 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|nact}} &ndash;<strong>[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]</strong>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

===={{la|Kardinal Offishall}}====
===={{la|Kardinal Offishall}}====
'''Semi-protection'''. Someone has been vandalizing the page everyday since March 23rd. This person has been using more than one computer, and the IP addresses start with 91.27. [[User:Blackjays1|Blackjays1]] ([[User talk:Blackjays1|talk]]) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection'''. Someone has been vandalizing the page everyday since March 23rd. This person has been using more than one computer, and the IP addresses start with 91.27. [[User:Blackjays1|Blackjays1]] ([[User talk:Blackjays1|talk]]) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:09, 31 March 2009


    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

    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



    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 - block-evading IPs causing disruption. Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3. ~ Troy (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Constant IP Vandalism, often many a day. Alan16 talk 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect or temporary full protection. Page was being edited by sockpuppets of a banned user. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Was protected recently for a week. Since protection was lifted, has been vandalized almost daily. More than 90% of the edits are either vandalism or reversals thereof.Shaliya waya (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. Tiptoety talk 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. An AfD a while ago led to requests to "merge and protect." Since time has passed, the story has died down, so there is no need for permanent protection. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - vandalism - There have been 32 edits this month: 11 real, 11 vandalism, 10 reverts (one rvt wiped two vandalisms). This is a 50% rate. All the vandalisms are from unregistered accounts. They tend to be either gibberish or obscenity. Please give it a week's semi-protection - maybe that will do the trick. Thank you. B00P (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, hit multiple times this hour.  Marlith (Talk)  23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety talk 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. This page has been semi-protected many times (including recently). Without fail, as soon as protection stops, IP and new-user vandalism starts. LobStoR (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection To preserve its current condition and to prevent any vandalism. 23:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)````Lalo22

    Temporary semi-protection Multiple cases of vandalism, IPs and others adding in random stuff like profanities, personal comments, or purposely editing sentences with incorrect details. Vandalism looks to have been happening for a while now. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, a lot of vandalism over the last few days. FrehleySpace Ace 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, The user who nominated the template for deletion clearly does not accept it leaning for Keep so he's trying to compromise it with disruptive edits like [1] and [2]. chandler · 22:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To what ends is this protection, is there anything factually incorrect in my edits, does FIFA recognise N.Yemen as defunct? Do you honestly expect a group of 150 year old men to start playing international soccer? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, The IP address(es) attacking the article do not respond to petitions to stop vandalism. Petty vandalism and removal of content (days across, so as to prevent dispute on-demand :-) ). Obviously, person has access to more than one IP address range, so range block is useless. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, All IP edits in first page of history is vandalism by kids. Non notable school, so vandalism remains a long time. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-30t21:47z 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Someone has been vandalizing the page everyday since March 23rd. This person has been using more than one computer, and the IP addresses start with 91.27. Blackjays1 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Constant edit warring over include of link to zeitgeist movement page. Multiple 3RR violations. sherpajohn (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Uncited edits regarding future coach. Willking1979 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, IPs again started adding unsourced speculation since the last protection expired. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. some what of a dispute. Several(?) ip users seem to think the colours associated with Russia are Red and White, and not the White and blue they've used in all their World Cups and European Championships to date (see 94, 96, 02, 04 and 08) The same format is used on all other countries, the colours most associated with the team, such as Brazil since 54 have used yellow and green in 14 World Cups, so that's used instead of white and blue. Austria have used white and black in every tournament to date except the last European Championship, so they still are most associated with the white and black, the same with Portugal and probably some other teams. And even with the proof of white and blue colours for all tournaments they still ignore it and revert. chandler · 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, one week protection; excess of uncaught vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one day. Tiptoety talk 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, one week protection: excessive uncaught vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - It looks to be the same IP doing the vandalism, report them to WP:AIV if they continue. Tiptoety talk 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Edit warring, dynamic IP vandals are replacing current article containing links and references with an advertisement-like article that doesn't have any references. --Darius2 (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one day. Tiptoety talk 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, multiple ips adding rubbish. chandler · 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent full protection. While I usually defend lists, I wanted to make sure we don't have any indefensible lists. I notice, for example, that List of assholes, List of fags, and List of niggers are all protected from recreation. Anyway, I think List of idiots should also be protected so that recreation cannot occur either as there's just no conceivable way such a list will ever be an acceptable article. In fact, I might recommend doing the same to any other "List of (insert racial or hate driven slur)". We don't want anyone to recreate these attack pages for even a few minutes as I believe allowing that tarnishes our project's reputation. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent full protection. While I usually defend lists, I wanted to make sure we don't have any indefensible lists. I notice, for example, that List of assholes, List of fags, and List of niggers are all protected from recreation. Anyway, I think List of skanks should also be protected so that recreation cannot occur either as there's just no conceivable way such a list will ever be an acceptable article. In fact, I might recommend doing the same to any other "List of (insert racial or hate driven slur)". We don't want anyone to recreate these attack pages for even a few minutes as I believe allowing that tarnishes our project's reputation. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Contiously being hit by IP sock of User:YourLord aka User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus, etc. Self admits to using IP socks[3]. As continues changing, page protect seems only way to keep out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Contiously being hit by IP sock of User:YourLord aka User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus, etc. Self admits to using IP socks[4]. As continues changing, page protect seems only way to keep out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Contiously being hit by IP sock of User:YourLord aka User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus, etc. Self admits to using IP socks[5]. As continues changing, page protect seems only way to keep out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Edit warring and trolling. -- Scorpion0422 12:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism by banned user. Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Muscovite99_evading_block for further info. Russavia Dialogue 08:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    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.

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    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

    Indefinite create-protection, Page already speedy deleted twice today, A7 nn-bio, and created a third time (apparantly as ongoing editing after the second deletion). Uncertain if the current editor created the article the first time. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Edit warring by dynamic IP vandal evading block for edit warring O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. I predict even more in the next few days. This is especially troublesome because people will look at this page in the next few days. Unapiedra (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection. Subject to anonymous edits based on rumors regarding job status. Zlinedavid (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Many vandalism by IP´s , please semiprotect article with indefinite expiration. Yopie 15:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection IP Vandalism The C of E (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Megaman en m (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Various IPs adding the same deranged joke once or twice per day. May merit indefinite protection; this is a very low-traffic article, and nearly all of the IP edits since January 2008 have been the same vandalism. This will be the fourth time the article has been semi-protected because of identical vandalism. McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three months, again. Indef semi-prot would be extreme. BencherliteTalk 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there another strategy we could pursue on this article? Like for example one of the anti-vandalism bots watching out for "gwabadee" being added to the article and insta-reverting it? It seems a shame that no IP editors can edit it due to (presumably) one vandal. Beve (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite create-protection, Repeatedly recreated. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. It's only been deleted three times. If it's recreated and deleted a fourth time, create-protection would be justified. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism. FrehleySpace Ace 11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. A lot of IP vandalism. --Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    and User(s) blocked. Lectonar (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection, Many different users keep placing fair use image on this page, including the user him/herself. He/she has already been warned about this before (I gave him/her an "official warning", in addition to what I've done... Not sure this follows protection policy but... NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 01:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If the IP adds again after the warning then report to WP:AIV and they'll likely be blocked. Nja247 07:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. A lot of recent vandalism in the last week. ♥NiciVampireHeart01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.Nja247 07:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism, block specific user only. Lucas20 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Nja247 07:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Enigmamsg 03:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. :) Enigmamsg 03:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]