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
VoABot (talk | contribs)
Bots
29,709 edits
m BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. [PR: 4 | UR: 2 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 6]
Groupempty (talk | contribs)
289 edits
m Requesting semi-protection of Smile. using TW
Line 8: Line 8:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
==== {{la|Smile}} ====
'''semi-protection''' '''+expiry 3 hours''', Semi-protection: High-traffic page, Vandalism [[User:{{{User|Groupempty}}}|{{{User|Groupempty}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|Groupempty}}}|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|Groupempty}}}|contribs]]) 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)



===={{la|Acquisition (software)}}====
===={{la|Acquisition (software)}}====

Revision as of 19:20, 17 March 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-protection +expiry 3 hours, Semi-protection: High-traffic page, Vandalism Groupempty (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection Ongoing reverting by anonymous IP, with no efforts to discuss on talk page. --Rebroad 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Ongoing multi-party edit war.Proabivouac 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. –Llama mantalkcontribs 19:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: High-traffic page, Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    full protection Full protection: User talk of banned user, Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined talk pages of blocked users are not normally protected. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect Heavy vandalism/unsourced speculation/fancruft from numerous IP vandals.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 18:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection High-traffic page with a long history of IP vandalism...page history shows past few weeks had no good faith edits from IPs. I just spent a while cleaning up the page and removing libel that had crept in. Danski14 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection - Current measures have been ineffective in keeping unverified information out of the fighters table, or even fostering a constructive talk page discussion on the matter. It is hoped that semi-protection would force anonymous editors to take the issue to the talk pages. Dancter 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. Vandalism by User:Mani1--125.238.9.20 14:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Not enough disruptive activity. – Steel 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection-Very high amounts of IP vandalism.Hondasaregood 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent random anon vandalism every time this page is unprotected. Chris Cunningham 13:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism since January. Most cases are from one person who appears to be using many IPs, each slightly different from one another. Even when this persistant vandal isn't operating, there is a high amount of vandalism from other IPs anyway. Page has been semi-protected before, but said annoymous vandal simply returned once the semi-protection had expired.  Panser Born  (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. He doesn't hit the page all that often, and he two most recent IPs have been blocked. I'll protect if it starts up again. – Steel 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Users routinely re-adding unsubstantiated accusations of widespread problems with the games. No reliable third party confirmation of such issues exists, and the relevant section of the game is being routinely added and then being deleted for being unverified/unencyclopedic. 84.12.100.241 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Not really enough disruptive activity, though I agree that section shouldn't be in the article unless better sources are found. I'll keep the page on my watchlist. – Steel 14:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for heavy vandalism and generally malicious edits. Seems every time it gets unprotected, anon IPs jump all over it. A long-term protection would be great, considering he's a 2008 presidential candidate. --Ubiq 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-frequent vandalism, as well as regular editing by those who apparently have no familiarity with the terminology or discourses of the movement but only seek to vandalize an article about fat people. Additionally, for supposedly not having a neutral point of view, many of those complaining about that point of view complain about, for example, how "unappealing" fat people are - which seems POV to me, at least. Sheana 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection due to frequent obscene vandalism from multiple IP addresses. Majoreditor 04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Take a look at this [[1]] as an example. Majoreditor 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected – Steel 13:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. There is a surge of vandalism today. Please lift after a few days as we often get good contributions from newbies. Kla'quot 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Semi-protected for five days --wL<speak·check> 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. IP users are constantly changing things that don't need to be. Especially character information. One edit, someone went and changed all the names. Nationalboard 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection: A very high traffic article, to which has been the source of a lot of vandalism and personal attacks, mostly by new accounts, or by IP addresses. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 18:54, 17 March 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.

    Why is this page protected? Computerwiz908 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. It was protected yesterday, due to high levels of vandalism, so it would be best just to wait for it to expire, which will be on the 22nd. –Llama mantalkcontribs 19:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page should be semi-protected. The dispute has finished. (RM21 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    There are those who think Gandhi is a god, but that, and the article, doesn't present a neutral view. the criticism section is woefully lacking and several people on the talk page have wanted to make additions to it.Itsnoteasybeingbrown 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Please suggest changes on the talk page or wait a few days until your account is four days old. – Steel 17:30, 17 March 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection - huge amounts of IP vandalism.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 11:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - Users engaging in edit war. Artaxiad 06:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to edit warring. – riana_dzasta 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, IP Edit war zero » 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Waxul1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection Semi-protection: User talk of banned user, Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why this page is protected, but I'd like to edit it. The Mad Genius 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected It was protected due to vandalism, but it's been a month, so I've unprotected. – riana_dzasta 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page was protected because Lasse Gjertsen was regarded as not notable. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a well documented article that states that he is notable. Hogne 08:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Have you talked to the deleting admin? – riana_dzasta 11:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:Temporary Account While F'n Drunk (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection Semi-protection: User talk of banned user, Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been deleted. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Difficult-to-spot vandalism from anons have piled up. JuJube 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. It's only been less than 2 days since the protection expired. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection A little over 50 anon edits in the last few days which have added truckloads of bogus information. It is still going on, and appears to be from a younger demographic. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism for 1 week. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection constant revert wars. --Rayis 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Once again... if you can, for another week... thanks--((F3rn4nd0 ))(BLA BLA BLA) 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by tariqabjotu. – riana_dzasta 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect. Has been constant target for suckpuppets of WP:LTA/Roitr. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for now as user currently seems to be operating under IP addresses. – riana_dzasta 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough activity to justify full protection. Report him to AIV for best effect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Protect to all but me. I don't want vandalism, so make it so that only I can edit my user page. 5Yippee 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Sorry, but it's impossible to protect your userpage so that only you can edit it; semi-protection is a close as you can get. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, now I can't edit it all. 5Yippee 16:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection Frequent vandalism by anynomous users. This page seems to be a favorite article for juvenile vandalists. Perhaps it should be permanently semi-protected... Fred Hsu 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Most of the vandalism was yesterday, and the only user who vandalized yesterday was 220.245.186.173 (talk · contribs). –Llama mantalkcontribs 22:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been watching this article for over a month now. I am reading up on color perception and color blindness, and will be editing this article again in the future. I notice that amongst the 132 articles I watch, Color blindness and jellyfish are vandalized on a daily basis. If these don't deserve semi-protection... I don't know what does. The amount of time I spend looking at edit diff to make sure that people reverted articles correctly was simply mind-numbing. I am really tempted to simply unwatch these two pages.
    But I haven't submitted protection requests before, so I don't really know how much vandalism is enough to justify semi-protection. Look at the 500 most recent changes. I wish I knew of a tool which can show that almost all anonymous edits were vandalisms. But judging from my own watching experience, it is true. Fred Hsu 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, most all IP edits to that article are vandalism, but there is not enough vandalism for it to be semi-protected. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection Frequent vandalism by anynomous users. I am planning on expanding article and petty vandalism has plagued this article for far too long. I would also like to avoid further problems associated with the school's IP being used in vandalism in this article. Uruloki 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=115846262"