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
request semiprotection - mushroom
Line 10: Line 10:
===={{la|Mushroom}}====
===={{la|Mushroom}}====
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP childish vandalism. Previously semiprotected for a brief period but as soon as it is unprotected, the random vandalism returns.[[User:Heliocybe|Heliocybe]] 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
'''semi-protect'''. High level of IP childish vandalism. Previously semiprotected for a brief period but as soon as it is unprotected, the random vandalism returns.[[User:Heliocybe|Heliocybe]] 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|nact}} [[User:Pax:Vobiscum|Pax:Vobiscum]] 13:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)




===={{la|Chrysler Cirrus}}====
===={{la|Chrysler Cirrus}}====

Revision as of 13:11, 7 July 2007


"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-protect. High level of IP childish vandalism. Previously semiprotected for a brief period but as soon as it is unprotected, the random vandalism returns.Heliocybe 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Pax:Vobiscum 13:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Repeated edit-warring by users over a few weeks, violations of NPOV. Pokefinger1224 12:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Repeated edit-warring by users over the content of the infobox. Pokefinger1224 12:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Anons keep deleting a picture from this article and this will probably never stop. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GDonato (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit war: users ignoring talk page and not trying to achieve NPOV consensus. Jaakobou 10:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GDonato (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - This is a recently announced J.J. Abrams project, what has been subjected to tons of speculations and unreliable sourcing since its teaser trailer first aired with Transformers on Monday. Most of the time people are adding completely unsourced, and usually speculatory information to the article. I believe it needs protection for awhile until the initial buzz for this film, which literally just started filming, has died some.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Signaturebrendel 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. See recent page history: this article has become some kind of battleground for combatants on another forum and has been loaded with attacks, non-NPOV statements, and personal information (as in possible home address) about the article's subject in the past couple of days. CynicElle 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 48h to clam things down and stop edit war. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection +expiry 2 days, Full protection: Dispute, hidden edit wars by 3 users treySex Me 03:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. 48h to stop edit war in progress - time to resolve issues on talk page. Signaturebrendel 07:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. POV pushing by 99.244.13.233 / Jordanjames. This user has been warned multiple times on both talk pages and hasn't responded to any message or warning. Absolutely no communication. It is the same with the article A Mighty Heart (film). -- WiccaIrish 02:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Fully protected both Orville Lloyd Douglas and A Mighty Heart (film) as semi-protection would not keep Jordanjames from editing. Try harder to resolve the dispute. Even with "no communication", it appears that Jordanjames has a point (assuming that Orville Lloyd Douglas really did make the points that are attributed to him). Look for a way to include this information in an NPOV way.

    --Richard 07:04, 7 July 2007 (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.

    Several month protection 68.39.174.238 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been protected for too long, and should be unprotected so new users and anons can edit. Protection policy is violated. Pokefinger1224 12:15, 7 July 2007 (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.

    We are trying to edit this page. could an admin please come to the talk page, to help us and provide some guidance on the next step? thanks. --Sm8900 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: message left at the article's Talk page. Regards, Phaedriel - 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific description of the requested edit:

    Delete this statements:

    • Under his office, Hungary suffered a high-profile athletic doping scandal during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. (no reference to justify the connection with him)
    • After his return to politics, Gyurcsány was at first tight-lipped on his religious affiliation, leading many to assume that he is an atheist (as can be expected from a former KISZ leader).

    (Referenced content don't justify about this this statement. The "as can be expected from a former KISZ leader" is an subjective opinion. Thanks --Beyond silence 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It seems to have been protected due to an edit war involving these statements. Protection is so parties are forced to either discuss or give up. Try one of those (preferably the former). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Full protection. Edit war has been going on (and still is). ​​​​Dtbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 04:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected with no set expiry time, request unprotection here when ready. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Oh my gosh. I have been dealing with this page for weeks. Although recent IP's edits may seem helpful, most are vandalism. treySex Me 04:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism, I'm watching it too now. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Vandalism from IP addresses on both this page, and the User:RingtailedFox/Directing_Buttons page, to conform with the rest of my pages being semi-protected from vandalism. All my pages have seen a total halt of vandalism once under semi-protection, so i'm requestion Semi-protect for these two pages as well The reason i have both a user page and a template page is that the user sub-page acts as a redirect. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I wasn't aware that users are allowed to have personal material in the templace namespace, is this kosher? Riana ⁂ 02:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is "kosher" and i was told it was allowed, since it's a template to help guide people around my pages, instead of having the same code beign repeated in many areas. it would be a pain in the bum to have to synchronize and edit ALL the pages involved if it were that way. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't quite understand. There is no redirect page, they are exactly identical. Why do you need both pages? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: You can't have this in the template namespace. You can do what I do and have something in your own userspace, like this, and transclude from there. The template namespace is for things that can be used in articles and such, not just for one user's benefit. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined per the above. This shouldn't be in template userspace. Templates almost always contain information pertitent to the encylopedia only. For example, the German userbox solution was created to move most userboxes unrelated to Wikipedia out of template space and into user space. --Deskana (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection +expiry 1 week, full protection: Vandalism, Sleeper sockpuppets returning to vandalize immediately after previous protection was lifted. Kurt Shaped Box 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The vandal seems to have run out of sleepers, given the recent inactivity. --Deskana (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection or semi-protection. There has been an edit war by anonymous users that keep making dark threats of physician conspiracies or future class action suits. Also, the references are in chaos, and random checking of some suggest the actual articles may not be neutral, or simply don't have anything to do with the specific information being referenced. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Repeated vandalism by several IP addresses. --Ricardo 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Repeated vandalism by IP addresses, especially one in particular; this is repeated pornographic vandalism from the same IP address. Squamate 01:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And that IP mentioned has not touched the article since June 27. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The reason is pretty obvious if you check the page history. TheBlazikenMaster 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect for 2 weeks: High levels of vandalism during the past week. Johnny Au 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection: Repeated vandalism by both registered and anonymous users seeking to add spurious, irrelevant, or inflammatory information of questionable accuracy or relevance. AdamKB 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. High level of IP vandalism. This page is a constant, daily ground for vandalism by anonymous users. The page itself is about a rap group with members who have legitimate and unusual names. This is taken advantage of by users who add in unusual names. Please protect until I and other registered contributers can sort through the fake names and real names and improve the quality of the page.BaRiMzI 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. Persistent editor is continuing to to remove all the sourced critical material.Ultramarine 12:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lower to semi-protection The article was being vandilised by new and IP users, why it was fully protected does not make sense. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What was the protecting admin's opinion on your unprotection request? – Steel 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From the looks of the protecting admin's talk page, it was protected due to BLP concerns and there is still some dispute over this. I would suggest taking this to WP:AN to get more input, until then,
    Declined Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection or semi-protection: There is massive and repeated vandalism by one or more anonymous users with way too much time on their hands. The main article is already semi-protected. --Magmagirl 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked over this page, I agree. all of the problems have been from anon users. Trusilver 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. — Malcolm talk 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, Massive vandalism by sockpuppetry. Gscshoyru 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have stopped, but Semi-protected for a short while to be on the safe side. – Steel 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=143091331"