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 24: Line 24:
:[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|20px]] Page protected[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/protect&user=Longhair] by [[user:Longhair|Longhair]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 02:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:[[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|20px]] Page protected[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/protect&user=Longhair] by [[user:Longhair|Longhair]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 02:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, this page is not protected. -- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 03:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry, this page is not protected. -- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 03:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I see, it was deleted and restored, so the protection fell off; otherwise the history made it look like it was protected.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]''' 03:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


===={{La|Marvel: Ultimate Alliance}}====
===={{La|Marvel: Ultimate Alliance}}====

Revision as of 03:13, 1 October 2006


"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 Multiple anonymous IPs changing images to non-relevant images. -- Gogo Dodo 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is now monitored for changes by a bot. Voice-of-All 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. I know little about what has been happening on this page - it recently lost semi-protection while it was deleted and restored. Something to do with libel apparently. Consider removal of protection was not intentional, and perhaps recent vandalism, please re-semi-protect for a while longer. I will not be watching it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected[1] by Longhair. Voice-of-All 02:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this page is not protected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, it was deleted and restored, so the protection fell off; otherwise the history made it look like it was protected.Voice-of-All 03:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to heavy vandalism from IP's.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. And the lack of edit summaries does not help. Voice-of-All 02:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Way too much vandalism. It seems like my watchlist is always displaying that page because of people vandalizing it/people reverting vandalism. Check the history of that page, theres vandalism being reverted about every 2-5 edits. Thankyou to the Administrator who proccesses this request. Alan Talk - Contributions 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is now monitored for changes by a bot. Voice-of-All 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to heavy vandalism by IPs. John254 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is now monitored for changes by a bot. Voice-of-All 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please semi-protect Tennessee Walker. Though highly inaccurate POV pushing is so far not confined to many individuals, it will probably stop completely if people have to identify themselves in a more tracable manner. This issue is "hot" right now within this small world, so vandalism may not be reverted quickly due to non-obvious tactics and low readership. POV of vandal is pretty much akin to holocaust denial, hence protection request. Thanks Montanabw 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: This article includes information about a recent event, which is highly embarassing and damaging for some political parties in Poland. The parties' representatives now try to push another version of the events, as well as their interpretation, in order to change the public perception of the issue. A registered user now tries to change the article according to this version, which is highly POV. I believe it would be good to protect the page fully for a week's time or so until emotions cool off and the pressure to change every record of the event would diminish. Bravada, talk - 10:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 02:45, 1 October 2006 (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.

    Would like to make additions to artice. Including the membership roster, etc ManOfTke 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Not much activity. Voice-of-All 02:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this template isn't in need of protection any more, as I wouldn't classify it as a highlt visible template in need of permanent protection. →AzaToth 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 02:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was semi-protected a long time ago, due to a huge vandalism war over the release date. That was two weeks ago, so the semi-protect can come down now. -Amarkov babble 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article needs to be semi protected because it is quite unstable with several new users changing information in the article. Until the article becomes stable, I request semi protection. Good friend100 13:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Requesting unprotection for this IP address. The continuous removal of links by user Lacrimosus and others over the past couple of weeks to the two additional websites (ACT & VIC, see history) is purely for political purposes. Considering I was the user to initially add all websites in good faith, I don't agree with the removal of certain websites for political gain as this is not the nature of the informative article. There is no distinction between 'official' and 'unofficial' sites. --203.100.252.74 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't keep mindlessly adding questionable or "cruft" links. You need to discuss edits on talk if they get reverted. Voice-of-All 02:34, 1 October 2006 (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.

    The talk page ONLY (User talk:TV Lover) needs to be moved to User talk:Cute 1 4 u/TV Lover in an effort to help organize communications between a blocked user (User:Cute 1 4 u). --Edtalk c E 22:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh - I don't understand why this is necessary. Can't she just use her own talk page? Cowman109Talk 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because User talk:TV Lover is the talk page of a sockpuppet. The sockpuppeteer is User:Cute 1 4 u. In order for everyone to contact Cute 1 4 u if necessary, it is essential to reroute everyone to the talk page for Cute 1 4 u.--Edtalk c E 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's already clear that TV Lover is a confirmed sockpuppet - no need to confuse things further with the move. Actually, I'll just clear off the talk page and add a note that it's a sock account there as well. Cowman109Talk 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tags are inaccurate. {{Indefblockeduser}} should be replaced with {{Banned user}} due to a community ban, and {{Sockpuppeteer}} should be replaced with {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} because this user has some proven sockpuppets. Jesse Viviano 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested edit made. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected broken redirect, qualifies under CSD R1. Please delete this. I cannot tag this with {{Db-redirnone}} because it is protected. Jesse Viviano 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Deleted. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Request full protection to prevent article gutting by a couple of disruptive and uncooperative POV editors, with total disregard for previous editor's contributions and previous discussions on the talk pages.--Scribner 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was just listed for peer review, largely due to the POV editing and reverting of sourced material by user Scribner. ACLU Peer Review Wiki is not his soapbox. NBGPWS 01:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Three editors who've worked on the article aren't happy with the gutting and disruption of NBGPWS and company. Please DON'T lock the article in the gutted revision. Thanks. Scribner 02:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My god. Please dont lock the article at all. Serious work needs to be done. This article is very poorly written. I will confess that I may have stepped on too many toes today and tried to change too many things at once. However, I came in at the tail end of an edit war. Some users have not let any changes occur and have broken the 3rr rule. If some administrator were to volunteer to watch over the page then I think this article could be greatly improved. I hope this helps. Thank you. Jasper23 03:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting protection so that User:Rex Germanus and I can work together to stop the stupid edit war that is occuring. Ameise -- chat 22:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully agree on full page protection, since User:Antman seems not willint to accept consensus and Wikipedia guidelines, and initiated an edit war. --LucVerhelst 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    'Semi-protection' requested, to stop the vandals who insist that it's not a music genre. dposse 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined as there does not appear to be enough activity to warrant semi-protection. Cowman109Talk 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    Semi-protection requested, to deal with energetic anons attacking Greenwald, a controversial political blogger and author. CWC(talk) 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Glen 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Old Account was hacked, so i had to create a new one. i wish to request protection, just how my old account was protected. I'm not sure if this is the place, but can that old account and its sub-pages be destroyed/banned to prevent it from being misued, and thought of as me? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit confused by this request. I'm putting it on WP:ANI to see what should be done. Cowman109Talk 00:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to explain a bit better... my old account was constantly vandalised and attacked.... then it was hacked. i wish to simply have my protection put on this new account to prevent the same from occurring on this account. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The other account hasn't been blocked yet, which is some cause for concern, however. I'm not exactly sure why your pages were protected in the past, either. I could have sworn we didn't protect user pages unless there was actual vandalism there. Cowman109Talk 00:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a great deal of vandalism, that's the thing. I can search through histories on the hijacked account to show you the vandalism, if you wish, or even through the history of this page for the records of why i was accepted. Basically, it was me being harassed for being bisexual and for being a furry...it then escalated to IMs (AIM, Yahoo), email, and soon.... these people even stalk me here with things like places i used to work at (User:Silicondirect and User:64.228.208.198) for example... RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 01:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you probably shouldn't list your e-mail and such on your account page to prevent spambots from using it, but that's another issue. Once things get sorted out at ANI I'll proceed from there, but I want to say no Declined for now unless more vandalism appears. Cowman109Talk 01:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, before you deny me, at least read over the list of vandalism:

    Vandalism History: User:Raccoon_Fox

    User_talk:Raccoon_Fox

    RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 01:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If the vandalism continues, I'll be happy to re-protect it, but there could also be legitimate anonymous users who may need to contact you for some reason, so unless the vandalism becomes a further problem there doesn't seem to be a reason to protect the page once more. Cowman109Talk 01:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'll just be highly annoyed and frustrated if this account is comprimised. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 03:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This user's talk page was protected for the duration of a tempblock - the tempblock has since expired, but the page was left semi-protected. It should have been fully unprotected since there's no history of vandalism on it. Well, there is, but still, the page should have been unprotected when the block expired. --Coredesat talk! 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined as, well, there is no such page. Cowman109Talk 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Requesting unprotection for this entry. Certain users keep removing entries about Muslim that are true. They remove them because they are negative, but still very true comments that they don't like. So they are leaving a sanatized version of Muslim on the site and censoring out the truth, albeit negative. They want a block not from vandalizing, but from people they are trying to censor, claiming the things they are saying are POV, when it is fact that there is terrorism associated with Muslim, such as http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.main/index.html . The moderators do not want anything negative to show such as Muslim leaders calling for Jihad. This is censorship and does not give an accuracte depiction of what kind of Muslims exist, even with documentation to back it up. The moderators or whoever is on there keeps removing negative references that are true and factual only because they don't like the image it gives. But again, FACTS are being mentioned. NOT POV... They claim that links like those from CNN and other news agencies about muslim terrorists are POV and shouldn't be mentioned. Some things ladies and gentlemen are just plain not rosey. YOu can't censor because you don't like it. You must allow truth to be heard. POV is "I don't like Muslims". FACT is that Muslim terrorists are calling for Jihad against Christians. Why would you remove a link like that?? It is part of history - and history you are trying to erase. Hitler and Nazis after his death tried erasing history. It isn't right.

    no Declined - make an account instead, but you seem to be suggesting that we unprotect the page so that you can edit war over it - which is exactly why it should be protected. Cowman109Talk 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was move protected. I added the {{R from alternate name}} template to the Shadowcat redirect, so the user who kept moving it to that page over redirect will have to submit a WP:RM request or try to use {{db-move}}; in any case, he can't disruptively move war anymore. Hbdragon88 07:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. Cowman109Talk 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason this has been "vandalized" is by adding two fansites to the section. It is not fair that one should have priority over the other, or that their can't be more than one at all! Someone seems to think this is the rule, and is quite paranoid about it, all I am asking is that the link natalia-tena.net, a valid Natalia Tena source that will benefit users perhaps even more than the article itself is placed under external links. Thankyou.Poifect 010:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, as the IP user was not engaging in conversation concerning the controversial edits - nonetheless, WP:EL is just a guideline and it does not state that there should always only be one link to a fansite, so I will make it clear that this is a content dispute and is an edit war, and blocking may be more appropriate instead of protection if it continues without discussion. Cowman109Talk 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection so that comments made by a banned user while he was banned can be removed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr_Chatterjee. Centrx protected this page to force the retention of comments by an indefinitely banned vandal; however, Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits clearly states that

    Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

    John254 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined - there is no reason to remove the comments. If anything, Willy's reasons for deleting CVU were insightful and helpful, despite his banned status. Cowman109Talk 22:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Let's try unprotection for a while. Hopefully protection is no longer necessary. Thank you, Anne Schmidt

    no Declined - wrong place and the page has just been protected. Please discuss on the talk page instead of edit warring, and I would recommend you get an account to make things easier as well. Cowman109Talk 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection To defend against User:Spotteddogsdotorg socks like User:Tecmobowl. TV Newser Tipline 10:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, not enough activity to warrant protection (and not even you would be able to edit your page, either in this case). Cowman109Talk 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection persistent blanker has returned and is blanking content against consensus of all other users, content is cited. Lordkazan 19:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a poor summary of this dispute in question. There is no reasonable consensus, and regardless, WP:BLP trumps consensus. I advise LK to engage in calm discussion on the talk page of the article, and stop reverting good faith changes. JBKramer 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You and Supreme_Cmdr are the only ones claiming there isn't consensus. WP:BLP doesn't trump consensus when, contrary to your assertions, consensus isn't violation WP:BLP as the sources you are objecting to are some of those exceptions to the rule that WP:RS makes reference too. Furthermore you are clearly not familiar with the history of this article to realize that User:Supreme_Cmdr is a persistent vandal as well as being a single purpose account - not to mention probably IS the subject of the article. Lordkazan 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    'Full protected due to an edit war. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Cowman109Talk 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection Has been vandalised ([12], [13]) by same anon at least three times despite warning.


    This page has been semi-protected for a week, so hopefully the rash of vandalism has ended, and it can return to normal page status. Grokmoo 03:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=78804101"