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
Cddoughty (talk | contribs)
93 edits
→‎{{lt|Anonymous and the Internet}}: archiving to stop trolling, if any admin disagrees with my move, restore it
Line 99: Line 99:
==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}

===={{lt|Anonymous and the Internet}}====
'''Unprotection'''. Protected against the protection policy. [[User:Cddoughty|Cddoughty]] ([[User talk:Cddoughty|talk]]) 16:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|nu}} Not a valid request for unprotection, [[WP:POINT|POINTY]] request. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::Saying it is protected against policy is not a valid request?--[[User:Cddoughty|Cddoughty]] ([[User talk:Cddoughty|talk]]) 17:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, when your interpretation of the protection policy clashes against what others have shown as the consensus. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] ([[User talk:Syrthiss|talk]]) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::::And where is the discussion that shows consensus of the protection of this template?--[[User:Cddoughty|Cddoughty]] ([[User talk:Cddoughty|talk]]) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:HRT]]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::It's only on 14 pages.--[[User:Cddoughty|Cddoughty]] ([[User talk:Cddoughty|talk]]) 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|Naga Chaitanya}}====
===={{la|Naga Chaitanya}}====

Revision as of 17:37, 17 August 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.

    Temporary full protection vandalism, The page is being vandalised every few minutes. Grim23 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:War on Drugs/Archive 1 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection, archive. also would someone look this over to ensure it was done correctly?. badmachine (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No need to protect archives in the mainspace talk unless it's absolutely necessary. The archiving was done correctly, yes. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - Anon IP keeps trying to remove information on previous marriage. Election is 30 Aug, if it makes any difference. Wizzy…☎ 14:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Enigmamsg 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection -- High traffic and vandalism due to upcoming game release. Asking for semi-protect to cover 1 week after game's release (release is Aug 28, so ~Sept 4-5) to allow established editors to continue to improve the article, and to discourage vandals. --Teancum (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, There currently a dispute regarding one fact. This dispute is now keeping on for months. LouriePieterse 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Ongoing revert war from a shifting IP, against several other editors. McGeddon (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Ongoing revert war from a shifting IP, against several other editors. McGeddon (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. O_o PeterSymonds (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Persistent IP vandalism now the last few months. IP gets small block but appears again when block is over and sometimes from different IP address. BigDunc 11:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Each time the user gets a new IP, that can be blocked. One IP repeatedly hitting a page is not grounds for protection. Enigmamsg 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full-protection vandalism, constant vandalism of unsourced and unconfirmed tracklistings even by users who have accounts. Mister sparky (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC) and --Legolas (talk2me) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please let me know if the dispute resolves before that time; I can then unprotect the page. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect vandalism, due to high attacks and vandalism made by several unregistered to Wikipedia users (IP addresses). LoVeCa (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I blocked the latest IP, thinking that would be enough. Judging by the history, it looks like a set of users. I have locked it for two weeks hoping that will solve the problem. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect Constant edits to opening paragraph by different IP users, these IP users all have a different idea of what the lifestyle is, the definition has been agreed upon by the regular registered users. These edits are constant and are not due to any recent event. Also moderate on-going amount of vandalism by people who obviously do not like the lifestyle. --Freikorp (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Repeated addition of clearly false joke information by a number of sockpuppets or co-ordinated editors. This is a teen tv drama. It does not have plot lines involving explicit sexual activity and extreme violence. Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 20:40, 19 August 2009, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Upgrading to full protection per the failure of semi-protection. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. South Bay (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Based on the protection log, a much longer term is needed here. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:94.192.38.247 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary full protection user talk of blocked user, Continued misuse of the {{helpme}} and {{unblock}} templates. User's questions have been answered many times by several users, blocked user refuses to acknowledge the responses and continues to misuse the templates. User was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Requesting protection of the page for the remainder of the block. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 06:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend an extension of the block and a revocation of talk page editing. Enigmamsg 06:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Talkpage blocked for the length of the current block by User:Jéské Couriano. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Enigmamsg 14:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Continuous edits by 1 range of ip addresses to add the same original research content every time it is removed from the IP range 114.~. Myself and another editor have had to revert the same content multiple times and will likely have to do so again in the future. I would prefer to just restict editing of the page from that range, but as far as I know it's not possible. . 陣内Jinnai 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. The IP range is a /12 but I've isolated two sub-ranges (a /22 and a /20) and blocked those for a week. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism/Speculation and fan fic. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism/Speculation and fan fic. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, IP vandalism accounts for 10 out of the last 50 edits, if I counted correctly; constructive IP edits occur, but are generally minor. --RobinHood70 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Bolshevik (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Constant racist vandalism by IP sockpuppets. RolandR 00:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/92.101.178.250. Enigmamsg 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked.. Ranges blocked per the case. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection Speculation about overview, episode #'s being deleated over and over, and adding other stuff being not needed from IPs are out of control. This page has already been protected 8 times, please make this protection actually last. EG| chat 75.10.142.102 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. An IP with a dynamic address is constantly trying to add part of the Queen + Paul Rodgers discography to this page, when it's been made clear multiple times that it is a separate band, and doesn't belong in the article. Recently, the IP has resorted to using an account, but it's still active using an IP. This has continued for a few weeks, and discussing hasn't worked. (X! · talk)  · @767  ·  17:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Removal of Ratings section, possibly by a sockpuppet of indefblocked User:GMA Fan. Momo san Gespräch 14:39, 16 August 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.

    Unprotection requested. The actor's first film is on verge of releasing and he has since gone on to sign another prestigious project. Universal Hero (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection requested. This article has been protected for over a year now. There is now adequate sources for Joe Hollywood. Such as a organizational website http://JoeHollywood.org and I also have any other available sources to support Joe Hollywood. Please un-protect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hollywood. Thank You.

    Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:36, 17 August 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

    Article is protected as a result of history merge from protected redirect. Reason for protection (repeated recreation) isn't relevant now. snigbrook (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Woody (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection requested. Article is semi-protected until September 15. An editor requested semi-protection because they thought IP's were vandalizing the article. In retrospect it seems as though it was a content dispute and the IP's and requesting editor have amicably agreed that it was not vandalism on the talk page. I would have liked to make the request to the protecting admin but they're on break until end of September.[1] Thanks.Ward20 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Woody (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection Article has been vandalized by anon ips going back into early August. Richard (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 06:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Chris-Gonzales (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection user talk of blocked user, Personal attack, see here. Maybe also consider a longer block length? 48 hours may not be enough since this user isn't heeding warnings. Momo san Gespräch 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also WP:WQA#Abuse of talk page during block, posting derogatory statements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed by block extended to two weeks. Could've been indef.. Enigmamsg 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection, Fair amount of recent vandalism. Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 02:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent addition of band with no wiki article Falcon8765 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, The arguments between User:Muntuwandi and User:Small Victory are reaching ridiculous proportions and spilling out across noticeboards. The edit warring on this page needs to be stopped. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined They can be blocked for edit-warring, if necessary. No need to full protect a page solely because of a dispute between two editors. Enigmamsg 02:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, massive random edits due to current competition in World Championships. Some are vandalism, some are making it a running commentary on the event. I'm not sure what to do about removing the current inaccuracies though. I'll have a stab at making it okay. Fol de rol troll (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 02:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, page is constantly being vandalised by anon users, page needs protection ASAP Medazzatrash (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of four months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Edit warring over contentious material in a BLP. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Enigmamsg 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection vandalism, Link spamming by rotating IP's. Momo san Gespräch 00:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: the two IPs that were causing the problems are both blocked. If it expands beyond that, it can be reconsidered at that point. (talk · contribs). Enigmamsg 02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection Excessive vandalism; almost every edit by anonymous users is vandalism, including blanking, removal of content, randomness, etc. The entire history of the page is basicly reverting vandalism. Alxeedo TALK

    Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 22:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, request one week semi-protection since possibly bogus, non-referenced paragraph is repeatedly being added to page. WmLawson (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    redlink. Enigmamsg 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I repaired the link, it was just a typo. ceranthor 21:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Enigmamsg 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Noticed a lot of recent vandalism that needs restoring and need page protection in order to do that. Govvy (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe it was just a small bit of vandalism, which seems to have stopped now. Might not need it. As I was able to get the fixes done after an 40 minutes had gone. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined for the bot. Enigmamsg 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotection, This has been semi-protected for more than 18 months now. Seems a bit too long if you ask me. I'd ask the protecting admin to unprotect this, but he/she hasn't made any edits on Wikipedia for a year, so that probably won't do much good. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Is there evidence that new/unregistered users would contribute positively to the page? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, any evidence that they wouldn't? It's been 19 months. Nja247 10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is supposed to be a joint project. There have been many concerns lately about Wikipedia becoming too closed for new users. Making semi-high vis pages inaccessible for new users to edit, and so they never get into editing. I know this is a general discussion, but I think King of Heart's question is a symptom of an unfortunate development and scepticism against newbies. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just recently protected Ciara discography due to a general torrent of IP vandalism and insertion of incorrect info; I'd be inclined to suspect that the artist's main article will have the same problem to an even greater degree. If another admin wants to unprotect it and see how it goes then no problem, but I would not personally unprotect this at the moment. ~ mazca talk 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited Ciara quite a bit in the past, so I won't answer this request, but I'll give my input: since Mazca recently protected her discography page, and because the article is a BLP, I would not unprotect for the time being. Acalamari 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this is Declined for now - I will review both articles once the current protection on Ciara discography expires, and if it looks like it's calmed down we can try a spell of unprotection for both. ~ mazca talk 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=308514554"