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
Mw93 (talk | contribs)
30 edits
Line 13: Line 13:
===={{la|Kathy Griffin}}====
===={{la|Kathy Griffin}}====
'''full-protect''' There has been alot of editing conflict with this page. There also has been sme vandalism by regestered IP. If you cant give full-protection then at least extend the semi-protecting longer. The page is under semi-protection now until august 20, and if you can please extend it. [[User:76.16.109.18|76.16.109.18]] 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
'''full-protect''' There has been alot of editing conflict with this page. There also has been sme vandalism by regestered IP. If you cant give full-protection then at least extend the semi-protecting longer. The page is under semi-protection now until august 20, and if you can please extend it. [[User:76.16.109.18|76.16.109.18]] 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been alot of editing conflict going on by regestered people. [[User:Mw93|Mw93]] 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


===={{la|List of Hannah Montana episodes}}====
===={{la|List of Hannah Montana episodes}}====

Revision as of 23:36, 8 August 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.

    full-protect There has been alot of editing conflict with this page. There also has been sme vandalism by regestered IP. If you cant give full-protection then at least extend the semi-protecting longer. The page is under semi-protection now until august 20, and if you can please extend it. 76.16.109.18 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) There has been alot of editing conflict going on by regestered people. Mw93 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. IP editors are creating unreferenced and made-up episodes. This is an on-going problem for this show. NrDg 22:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for 48-72 hours, has been target of IP editors inserting unsourced information claiming the show has been cancelled. WAVY 10 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi-protection and/or {{sprotected}} - Heavy ip vandalism apparently ongoing for months now. Seems to be more than one user manipulating the ip(s), the only useful edits appear to be those from registered users. I'm surprised by how no one had noticed it. Lord Sesshomaru 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month - silly amounts of vandalism -, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, please. There has been a constant barrage of rumourmongering and crystalballery from IPs and new users over the past few days. The article needs time to cool down and allow for discussion to take place. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The entry has been repeatedly re-edited to remove material that seems to be entirely appropriate, such as factual information regarding the chart position of games. This is surely of obvious relevance to the subject's notability. Request made on behalf of 83.67.217.135, who felt daunted by the RfPP page. See here for the request, and the current AfD, which is causing increased editing of the article. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Lots of vandalism recently.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ☺ 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Once again banned user BoxingWear is repeatedly reverting my edits by using an anonymous IP. This time it is with the Heavyweight page. There was some dispute about the exact weight classification that makes one a heavyweight. Severo stepped in as a sort of informal mediator. After looking at original sources, Severo agreed with me that anyone over 200 pounds (90.72 kgs) is a heavyweight, and that was added into article. The "anonymous" user, however, continues to insist that we are wrong, even though he can produce no proof of it. He's also posting things like this on talk pages: "i will not give you any sources, because you do not want to read, is this too hard ?". Both Severo and I have tried to reason with this person, but it seems that cannot be done. I feel semi-protection of that page is the only way to deal with someone who refuses to abide by consensus on that page. Furthermore, he's a banned user so he shouldn't be editing under an anonymous IP. MKil 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

    Not true, boxingwear talk is blocked only, severo agreed on other things, many things he told me should go away and we resolved the problem, we did do that, except 201 lbs, which is the INTERNATIONAL NORM, http://www.yoursportsview.com/boxinghistory.html And it clearly says above 201. Mkil is usual is arguing about 28 grams. 90.72 and 91 kg whis is pretty much the same.

    this man mkil has serious psychological problems, look at the talk and heavyweight link and EVIDENCE, FOOTNOTE ON THE WEIGHT, I AM REQUESTING SOMEBODY STOPS THIS MAN. He also accused me of being somebody I am not, nor under block log above does it say that person is associated with other sockpuppets. User:Peer-to-Peer is Mkil but he is allowed to edit here, so yes, block heavyweight page for good, so he does not destroy it again.

    I have to agree with MKil on this one. SeveroTC 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is obvious this administrator should not be an administrator, i told him to email others,

    here's the original JULY RATING from NATIONAL BOXING ASSOCIATION, you can check with them...

    www.geocities.com/ratingsrating/augratings07.doc and it clearly shows way over 200 is a heavyweight!

    Semi-Protection - Too much vandalism daily. --Vonones 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protection - after finished WP:RM a user is disputing it and moving the article at will. PS. That user is an admin - so it may be just a symbolic protection, but WP:RM should be respected.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Please see [1] - Alison ☺ 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection - Alot of edit warring, mostly from User:EliasAlucard we need the page protected or him blocked he has reverted 8 times in one day. [2] --Vonones 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected.[3] by Garzo. - auburnpilot talk 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection - There has been a lot of IP vandalism lately. Loof1 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. A bit borderline, but I don't see any constructive edits from anon users. I've semi-protected for a period of two weeks. - auburnpilot talk 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - disruptive (and POV-fueled) edit war between multiple users on both sides of the disagreement.--DLandTALK 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Edit war. Mathemaduenn 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 8 August 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.

    uprotect. Has been semi-protected for nearly two months now. Unless there's some new norm to keep guidelines and policy semi-protected it seems like it's time to unprotect and hope we can all act like grownups. SiobhanHansa 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection Time to unprotect. Navou banter 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should not be protected for too long. No need for protection for this long anyway. --Glassbouncer336 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No reason for this to be edited. If you have a change in mind, please leave a note on the associated talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should not be protected for too long. No need for protection for this long anyway. --Glassbouncer336 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined As an official Wikipedia disclaimer, there is no reason for this to be edited. If you have a change in mind, please leave a note on the associated talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should not be protected for too long. No need for protection for this long anyway. --Glassbouncer336 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined As an official Wikipedia disclaimer, there is no reason for this to be edited. If you have a change in mind, please leave a note on the associated talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Should not be protected for too long. No need for protection for this long anyway. --Glassbouncer336 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined If you believe a change needs to be made to the text shown when moving a page, I'd suggest leaving a comment at the WP:PUMP. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 8 August 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.

    Would be more useful as a protected redirect to The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory. east.718 at 18:00, August 7, 2007

    Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please change this to a soft redirect, as Wikipedia:Special:X pages are supposed to be soft redirects, and most of them are. Plus, traditional redirects to Special Pages don't work. Cool Bluetalk to me 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Docu protected most of these redirects, for reasons that aren't clear to me. You're welcome to ask about it on his/her talk page.--Chaser - T 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please add Category:Free image placeholders to these pages. 81.157.31.61 02:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Good idea :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this page be redirected to The Perry Bible Fellowship? See also Skub, a similar meme. Will (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page had no redirects, only nonsense pages, however, there are better ways around it than salting pages. I suggest that someone redirects this to Cool (aesthetic). 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    Done - good idea. Nihiltres(t.l) 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please revert to (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008&oldid=148110011), as it is the last known version where all listings are cited. Thank you. Socby19 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think administrators are supposed to revert to previous versions when pages are protected. Cool Bluetalk to me 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Coredesat 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of TJ Thyne's television and movie appearances is woefully incomplete and should be replaced by the lists below. According to imdb.com (very reputable site for actors' appearances), TJ Thyne has appeared in the following TV Shows followed by Movies below:

    Already unprotected. (List copied from imdb deleted) Use the article's Talk page to discuss changes. Thank you. --Edokter (Talk) 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected article nominated for deletion. Just needs {{subst:afd1}} placed at the top of the page - thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Alison ☺ 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This should either be redirected to insult or stupidity, more likely stupidity, since dumbass is often used on someone who is dumb. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This request is not so uncontrovertial that I'm willing to carry it out. Perhaps try proposing it on the talk page? --Deskana (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article curently violates Wikipedia Policy because it contains a very large amount of OR/synthesis and does not contain the fact/citation request tags that were there. I don't believe the discussion will move forward if the OR remains on the protected page. The editors who edit warred to keep it in have not engaged in a fruitful discussion thus far - while editors who removed it or tagged it have presented their case in detail on the talk page. I suggest reverting back to this version which removes much of the OR and adds the fact/citation tags back. Dreadstar † 19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined According to the talk page, it was protected due to a dispute over OR/synthesis. The remedy is to gain consensus first, then do the edit. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    In the interest of improving article's overall research credibility and accuracy, exceptional situation edit requested due to significant corrections to the footnote references. Since the page was protected, I've taken the time to go over all the referenced passages and realized that in previous versions, there were mistakes in major reference works cited. The correct info for 3 major reference works cited are as follows:

    Spurlock, D., & Buscema, J.(2001) John Buscema Sketchbook. New Jersey:Vanguard Productions
    Comic Book Artist, 21 (Aug. 2002)
    Alter Ego, v.3, 15 (June 2002)

    In addition, the previous versions have various formatting problems, including non-sequential use of 'ibid', which Wiki guidelines advise against.

    Request to replace current version with corrected version found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke. (Please note that if any policy and guideline problems with the corrected article are noticed, I'd be more than happy to be made aware of them.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema

    Current situation with dispute can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema

    PS - If this isn't feasible, at least upload the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke version onto the article and revert back to the current version - as I feel having an accurate, clearly referenced version on record, with the dating and comparison functions, will help with the mediation process. In any case, it's the version I'd like to work with in mediation rather than the 12:48, 12 June 2007 version; it would also free up space on my user page.

    Help with this exceptional situation would be much appreciated.

    --Skyelarke 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined per talk page discussion. --Coredesat 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Please See Below

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Raymond Arritt 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Raymond Arritt 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Raymond Arritt 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-Term Semi-Protection These are some of the targets of an IP vandal who vandalizes articles and templates with his/her political views. This has been going on for a month and there is no way to stop this IP vandal unless ROC/Taiwan related pages are protected or the entire range is blocked. Nat Tang ta | co | em 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. One user with roaming IP 70.108.XXX.XXX keeps reverting. Against what reference says. Maggott2000 07:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection I'm not sure whether this qualifies as vandalism, but anonymous users just won't get it. There is a huge UNSOURCED ADDITIONS WILL BE REMOVED box on top of every section, but the history consists entirely of anons adding unsourced entries and others reverting them. Melsaran 11:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Pax:Vobiscum 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The edit war is long past and the deletions of several "Allegations of X type of apartheid" articles means this parent needs to be revised. Lothar of the Hill People 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Unless proof that the edit war is over is presented. How is it long past? It was just protected a week ago and there have been edits to the arbitration request today. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect repeated IP vandalism still happening. Dbromage [Talk]Australia 11:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Report vandals to WP:AIV please. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Royal society of human rights investigators (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full protection repeated posting of blatant copyvio material still happening. Dbromage [Talk]Australia 11:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Report vandals to WP:AIV please. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect: Since Karl Stefanovic has been given semi-protect, the vandals have moved on to Get This. Number of anonymous and recently created accounts in the last few days The KZA 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks. --DarkFalls talk 10:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. IP vandalism and edit wars. DerDoc 10:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There's only one edit within two days. Not enough activity. --DarkFalls talk 10:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:84.13.129.144 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect sudden vandalism from different IPs. Shouldn't need protect for long. Spunkymcpunk 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --DarkFalls talk 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect sudden vandalism from different IPs. Shouldn't need protect for long. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 08:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. --DarkFalls talk 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Extremely high amount of IP vandalism since June 2007 on a page which is usually rarely edited. This user targets Thai-related articles. The Adventure of Sudsakorn, for example, was semi-protected several times because of this individual, the latest case for a month. Esn 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. --DarkFalls talk 07:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect A lot of random IP addresses are deleting, defacing, and/or vandalizing this page. --Hdt83 Chat 07:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. --DarkFalls talk 07:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection As in section 1 of the contents on the talk page Talk:Billie Joe Armstrong I belive this page will get vandalised again, as he is the lead singer of a relatively popular band. The cheese master 06:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry not sure which template to use, so I just used internal link. The cheese master 07:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Can't sleep, clown will eat me--DarkFalls talk 07:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protect Seeking permenant image protection for an obviously sexual image which has the potential to become user-page vandalism fodder if it hasn't already done so. Would like the image restricted to sysop selected pages only. Thanks - WikipedianProlific(Talk) 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Image is already included on MediaWiki:Bad image list and cannot be displayed on pages other than those listed. - auburnpilot talk 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protect -- Multiple IP's from fan forums changing links to reflect their sites link rather than the official site, or changing it from a rival forums to their own. Forum and site advertising for ixample "They claimed that the best player are going to be found off of huxleyevolved.com" posted by newly registered user TimRaver on July 30 2007. The TimRaver name appears to only be used for vandalism. BURNyA 22:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Too soon to call it an edit war. Furthermore, for external link wars, users insisting in placing links that do not conform to WP:EL should be warned for spam and reported to WP:AIV if disruption persists after that. No warnings have been given to User:TimRaver, no evidence of vandalism from this user actually.--Húsönd 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=150077388"