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
Rjd0060 (talk | contribs)
33,499 edits
m Reverted edits by 76.189.126.77 (talk) to last version by Rjd0060
Abd (talk | contribs)
14,259 edits
→‎{{la|Cold fusion}}: refer to protecting admin's response after the discussion on my Talk page about the ban agreement.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 77: Line 77:
==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}

==== {{la|Cold fusion}} ====
Article was protected as a result of edit warring based on a request from the principal edit warrior, who then, pending the protection, made major changes to the article, thus gaming the system. There is a history with diffs at Talk for the protecting admin, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Delaney&oldid=294069454#Your_protection_of_Cold_fusion.3B_gaming_of_protection_by_Hipocrite permanent link], and please see the next section where the editor responds and I invite a topic ban on both of us. While I had not been edit warring with the recent incident, the complaining editor asserted that I was, in the complaint, so to expedite article unprotection so that regular editors may deal with the wreckage, I offered to accept this ban if the complaining editor was likewise banned, pending resolution. That editor accepted this, in substance, but the protecting admin declined to respond, seeming to think that we were still in conflict. Because of this, I'm asking here for an admin to look at the incident, and at the agreement on my Talk page at [[User talk:Abd#0rr]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&oldid=294067988#0rr permanent link as of this request], and please see the protecting admin's response after that. Because the other editor has not accepted the clarified agreement, it might be prudent for an unprotecting administrator to make the agreement binding by imposing it (as written, it still could be lifted on 24 hour notice by either editor), or otherwise to block or ban to allow the article to be safely unprotected. As it stands, the article was protected into a state that was not consensus, and which was only created by the complaining editor after requesting protection; the lead has been made highly POV -- in my opinion, and I'm sure that is also editorial consensus, that last-minute, gamed edit flew in the face of long established consensus to not call [[Cold fusion]] "pathological science" in the lead, and whatever substance there is to that was repeated with "pariah field." I'm not asking for ''any'' content decision here, just review of editor behavior or, alternatively, recognition that with a article topic ban of the only two editors who did any serious edit warring on the article recently, there is no further need for protection. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


==Current requests for edits to a protected page==
==Current requests for edits to a protected page==

Revision as of 01:45, 3 June 2009

"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-protection vandalism, IP's continuously violate WP:BLP especially with unsourced claims that Westwick is dating various women, yet today those edits aren't being reverted immediately. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, No useful edits for several days, and a frequent target of anonymous/new account vandalism in that time. --GoodDamon 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. — Aitias // discussion 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - Lots of vandalism regarding a potential move to Real Madrid. Please semi-protect for at least 24 hours. – PeeJay 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. — Aitias // discussion 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, unregisterd editors continue to revert to "islam predates christianity". Fremte (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This page was semi protected for a month recently, now that has expired we are getting (the same) regular vandalism from various IP address.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP posting non-sourced/verified info. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing request, seems to have settled down. JQF • Talk • Contribs 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined (for bot) Icestorm815 • Talk 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Catherine Crier

    Full indefinite talk-page protection. High profile BLP target of serial auto-confirming defamatory editor. Substantial risk. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. by Thatcher. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Anonymous editors edit-war, introducing changes which are clearly false to those who read the page carefully, or which make it hard to understand what the topic of the page is. The anonymous editors do not provide edit summaries nor to they discuss on the talk page. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection heavy IP vandalism provoked by ongoing football transfer. Struway2 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully the transfer is over by then. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Really boring level of IP vandalism. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. One editor keeps erasing Navy EOD from the special operations forces, which it is. I would like to request semi protection of this page as soon as possible. United States special operations forces—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmack89x (talk • contribs)

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. One editor (using a dynamic IP) is continually removing reliably sourced, encyclopedic content and replacing it with a tract which I believe is copied from an AIDS denialist website and which violates WP:BLP (along with pretty much every other content policy). Since the IP is dynamic, I'd like to request temporary semi-protection. There are relatively few editors watching the page and I have edited it in the past, so I'm passing this request on to an uninvolved admin. Thanks. MastCell Talk 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by another admin. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protect. Revert/edit war going on-requested informal mediation which I have answered & am now beginning informal mediation, however I feel that unless it's protected we won't get anywhere, so request page protection until we get to a consensus & decision. Thanks! Dotty••|TALK 15:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. The Ancient Olympic Games is vandalized at least once a day as evidenced by the article's history. The Olympic Games article received the same amount of "attention" before it was semi-protected, after protection vandalism on the Olympic Games article nearly vanished, I hope the same will happen with this article. Please consider semi-protection. H1nkles (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It looks like the patrollers can handle the current level of vandalism. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. The show's newest season is scheduled to begin filming this week. Lots of speculation in regards to which fighters will be competing, almost all of these unsourced, speculative edits are by IPs. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • And as I'm working through the individual edits (50+ during the last 12 hours), it's not even speculation on the participating fighter's it's just random names, definitely vandalism. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent full protection, redirects to MediaWiki talk:Common.css, to "help centralise discussions and keep..." Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. No vandalism has occurred on these pages since their existence. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's articles that are rarely protected preemptively (per WP:PP). Plenty of precedent exists for protecting redirects or templates in this manner. Just saying. Tan | 39 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The precedent for permanent protection, as far as I know, only relates to articles that could cause widespread damage if they were to be vandalized, such as templates that are transcluded on large numbers of pages. We can't risk vandalism to {{fact}} for example, since it's transcluded on thousands of pages; but this is a talk page redirect. Why can't we simply revert, block, ignore if it's vandalized? --Ryan Delaney talk 20:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually don't see an issue with this request. It is in attempts to keep discussion relating to the pages centralized on a talk page that is actually watched. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (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 was protected as a result of edit warring based on a request from the principal edit warrior, who then, pending the protection, made major changes to the article, thus gaming the system. There is a history with diffs at Talk for the protecting admin, permanent link, and please see the next section where the editor responds and I invite a topic ban on both of us. While I had not been edit warring with the recent incident, the complaining editor asserted that I was, in the complaint, so to expedite article unprotection so that regular editors may deal with the wreckage, I offered to accept this ban if the complaining editor was likewise banned, pending resolution. That editor accepted this, in substance, but the protecting admin declined to respond, seeming to think that we were still in conflict. Because of this, I'm asking here for an admin to look at the incident, and at the agreement on my Talk page at User talk:Abd#0rr, permanent link as of this request, and please see the protecting admin's response after that. Because the other editor has not accepted the clarified agreement, it might be prudent for an unprotecting administrator to make the agreement binding by imposing it (as written, it still could be lifted on 24 hour notice by either editor), or otherwise to block or ban to allow the article to be safely unprotected. As it stands, the article was protected into a state that was not consensus, and which was only created by the complaining editor after requesting protection; the lead has been made highly POV -- in my opinion, and I'm sure that is also editorial consensus, that last-minute, gamed edit flew in the face of long established consensus to not call Cold fusion "pathological science" in the lead, and whatever substance there is to that was repeated with "pariah field." I'm not asking for any content decision here, just review of editor behavior or, alternatively, recognition that with a article topic ban of the only two editors who did any serious edit warring on the article recently, there is no further need for protection. --Abd (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2009 (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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary full protection vandalism, This page is vandalized frequently and need to be protected. Oniongas (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of vandalism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected., we should be liberal with BLPs and certain very high profile pages. Life is about as core of a topic as you get in a reference work. Also, I put on a move protect, since, well, what other name would it be possibly be under... rootology/equality 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This article keeps getting vandalised by ip editors. I request indefinite semi-protection. It has been requested before multiple times by several editors but declined because of "not enough recent vandalism". My point is that it is continually under "moderate" attack from vandals for literally years. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Persistent vandalism. Multiple users + IPs. Schol site seems to have come under attack from several ex or expelled pupils and a lot of admin time seems to be taken up reverting the edits.

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, to address recent IP vandalism regarding the recent murder of George Tiller. (A similar request was recently granted for Operation Rescue (Kansas)). Whatever404 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection for a few days Currently suffering from the attention of a POV warrior wiht more than one IP address changing mentioons of Turkish invasion of Cyprus to Turkish peace operation.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 12:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, There is an edit war taking place. I wish protection to be enabled so that full consensus can be earned on the talk page instead of edit warring which isn't benefiting the page. MITH 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined,at the moment I think blocks for all continuing to edit-war, to be requested at WP:ANEW, will send a much clearer message to those involved than any protection that would probably just make them hop to the next Ireland-related article. SoWhy 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Vandalism from many different IPs since months ago. They keep deleting the page content. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Persistent vandalism. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. The vandal account has been blocked instead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=294075500"