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: 2 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 2]
Line 89: Line 89:
'''Temporary full protection''' apparently new users keep re-adding the same [[WP:OR|original research]] to the page. I'm about to post an explanation on the talk page describing why I have removed every instance of unsourced content. [[User:Sesshomaru|Lord Sesshomaru]] <small>([[User talk:Sesshomaru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sesshomaru|edits]])</small> 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
'''Temporary full protection''' apparently new users keep re-adding the same [[WP:OR|original research]] to the page. I'm about to post an explanation on the talk page describing why I have removed every instance of unsourced content. [[User:Sesshomaru|Lord Sesshomaru]] <small>([[User talk:Sesshomaru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sesshomaru|edits]])</small> 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|d}} The level of disruptive acticity seems rather low. [[User:Pax:Vobiscum|Pax:Vobiscum]] 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|d}} The level of disruptive acticity seems rather low. [[User:Pax:Vobiscum|Pax:Vobiscum]] 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

===={{la|Nathaniel Street-West}}====
'''temporary full protection''' ''Dispute'', Edit war has been going on for a few weeks. I am concerned about either vandalism and/or simply an overly aggressive editor with an ax to grind. The main editor/aggressor is [[User:Butseriouslyfolks]] and until sometime yesterday he appeared to be the sole initiator of disruptive activity. He unfairly tagged the page for WP:COI, repeatedly slammed my character and that of others in public talk sessions and has now posted a request for page deletion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Street-West]] on October 24. He appears to have a "sidekick" which i suspect may be an alias, as this editor [[User:Scarian]] simply appears to quote [[User:Butseriouslyfolks]]. This all occurred rather suddenly around October 1, 2007 and has now escalated way out of control. I have asked the editor/aggressor to follow the rules of Wikipedia when there is a dispute but he refuses to comply. Specifically the editors working on the Street-West article (there are more and more coming on board every day now) are furiously attempting to respond to this aggression. The way things are going they and I will have the article footnoted with numbers for each and every phrase within a few weeks, leaving nothing to chance. In actuality there were references for each and every phrase in the original article. albeit not footnoted or made clear as to origin. And Street-West does meet criteria for [[WP:MUSIC]]. [[User:PennyLane100|PennyLane100]] 02:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==

Revision as of 02:43, 25 October 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.

    indef semi-protect. Persistent IP vandalism. Page was indefinitely semi-protected in April, but after protection due to recent edit conflicts, semi protection wasn't restored. snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 01:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Steady target of IP vandalism, which typically intensifies around the show's airtime..NASCARFan24(radio me!●ER) 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protect Vandalism, Continuous Vandalism.Lloydpick 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protect ip vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , Please protect my userpage to fend off vandalism. Though it is not currently a target, it has been in the past while vandal fighting..– Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Lots of IP vandalism.   jj137 (Talk) 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - Edit war breaking out. -- Eleemosynary 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. - auburnpilot talk 23:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, This page attracts large levels of IP vandalism.Гedʃtǁcɭ 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Anon vandalism from students. threats of more vandalism to come. talk about teachers, principals, etc... Knowledge lover1123 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The level of activity right now isn't sufficient to warrant a semi-protection. Also putting a protection tag will not protect an article. Only administrators can protect articles.--JForget 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Target for anon. vandalism. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - persistent IP vandalism by multiple addresses over the last several weeks which I suspect are the same person. Otto4711 22:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Frequent vandalism from IPs in a similar range since the beginning of the month, adding various kinds of nonsense (a recurring theme has included adding a picture of Percy the Green Engine (Image:PercyTTTE1.jpg), a character from kids series Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. --Domestic Correction 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, By far most recent edits are either vandalism or reversion of vandalism..Goochelaar 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - heavy vandalism from Washington schools IPs. Now rangeblocked 24 hours :) - Alison ❤ 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Constant addition of politically biased information Kdimacchia 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Edit war has been going on for a few days now, with nothing but reverting back and forth. I've warned all participants with {{uw-3rr}}..Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - multiple anon edits + one WP:SPA. Strange content dispute - Alison ❤ 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Okay, this has been protected threetwo times in the last month and it has not stopped the flow of (usually childish) IP vandals.NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, This page is seeing ALOT of continued, repeated, and blantant vandalism over a freakin' slogan. I am requesting a partial protect of the page for say, 7 days. Thanks..NeutralHomer T:C 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism over last 2 days. 82.9.197.121 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection apparently new users keep re-adding the same original research to the page. I'm about to post an explanation on the talk page describing why I have removed every instance of unsourced content. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The level of disruptive acticity seems rather low. Pax:Vobiscum 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Edit war has been going on for a few weeks. I am concerned about either vandalism and/or simply an overly aggressive editor with an ax to grind. The main editor/aggressor is User:Butseriouslyfolks and until sometime yesterday he appeared to be the sole initiator of disruptive activity. He unfairly tagged the page for WP:COI, repeatedly slammed my character and that of others in public talk sessions and has now posted a request for page deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Street-West on October 24. He appears to have a "sidekick" which i suspect may be an alias, as this editor User:Scarian simply appears to quote User:Butseriouslyfolks. This all occurred rather suddenly around October 1, 2007 and has now escalated way out of control. I have asked the editor/aggressor to follow the rules of Wikipedia when there is a dispute but he refuses to comply. Specifically the editors working on the Street-West article (there are more and more coming on board every day now) are furiously attempting to respond to this aggression. The way things are going they and I will have the article footnoted with numbers for each and every phrase within a few weeks, leaving nothing to chance. In actuality there were references for each and every phrase in the original article. albeit not footnoted or made clear as to origin. And Street-West does meet criteria for WP:MUSIC. PennyLane100 02:43, 25 October 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.

    Unprotect As seemingly the only person resurrecting WikiProject Mississippi, I have went through the pain-staking tasks of cleaning up numerous templates and pages used by the project. Unfortunately, after totally overhauling this particular template, I now have an issue with an admin that fully protected it to prevent me from editing it because he didn't like the background color. He pointed to Wikipedia:Talk page templates and changed the template. That's all well but Wikipedia:Talk page templates states that while it is a guideline, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I reverted the admin's change to the template. He/she came back and reverted it again, fully protected it saying "you use the standard unless you have a good reason not to, and you don't." Wikipedia:Talk page templates doesn't say I have to have a good reason. It, in simple terms, says this is a guideline but you don't have to follow it but use common sense and if a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. The admin is apparently refusing to work with me.. it's his way or no way. The background color of the template is uniform with the WikiProject Mississippi scheme and it should stay as I had it. Aside from the color issue, I now do not have any access to the template whatsoever to make any kind of other administrative changes and I think it's petty and a waste of time to have to hunt down an admin to make the changes for me if I need them made immediately. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect.--Southdit 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect article. Has been semi-protected for three months; it's been a while. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, given it was just full-protected due to edit warring within the last hour, and I'm not reversing that. Daniel 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernard Hopkins page is being vandalised whilst on semi protection. It should be unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Robbins (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 October 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 15:44, 10/24/2007

    Done - good call, and this is totally unrelated to previous two AfDs for a nonsense article. Useful redir - Alison ❤ 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protection Vandalism, Multiple IPs vandalising freely since protection expired on 12th October..BencherliteTalk 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - schoolkid target - Alison ❤ 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Consistent, daily vandalism from anon's. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - sorry - Alison ❤ 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism within the past few days, most abuse from today stemming from one problem IP. No edits made to this page since the 22nd have been constructive to the article at all, only vandalism and subsequent reversion. TheLetterM 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Just for a few days, due to the Xkcd strip. Kolindigo 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected I see sleepers. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Absurd amounts of IP vandalism lately. RedSpruce 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The vandalism has an average shelf life of ~3 minutes. Keep watchlisted and revert as necessary. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, heightened, for a little article about an ancient land..~Eliz81(C) 17:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, This is one of the most vandalized pages at the moment. Various IP-ers vandalize it. .Muenda talk 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Anthøny ん 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect – I request protection for the following pages:
    Godfather of the Ghetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Shoot to Kill (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Follow My Lead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Come & Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Because of the recent publicity of rap group G-Unit and 50 Cent's change of singles, there seems to be a lot of drive-by vandalism/date changing which frequent editors of the page have to revert almost hourly. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – Godfather of the Ghetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been Semi-protected for seven days. However, the rest of the articles have not experienced significant levels of Vandalism, and so I've not protected them - we don't protect articles on a "pre-empt" basis (see the protection policy). Regards, Anthøny ん 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: – I've re-titled this section, so as to eliminate any confusion over where new requests should be placed. Anthøny ん 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection High levels of IP vandalism in recent days / weeks. BencherliteTalk 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. If the current levels continue, please re-request protection. Anthøny ん 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Absurd amounts of IP vandalism lately. RedSpruce 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – 1 week. Anthøny ん 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Constant addition of nonsense by schoolkids and too much spamming. Whitmorewolveyr 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - plenty of POV-warring going on right now, more so than vandalism. Alison ❤ 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, expiring in a few weeks. Too much POV editing and addition of nonsense. Whitmorewolveyr 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. very low activity, one anon vandal now blocked - Alison ❤ 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent full protection and/or move to MediaWiki namespace. It is a user JavaScript page that can be edited by anyone, and thus is insecure. Also requesting the same for Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Logs link, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Six tabs, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css, and all other JavaScript or CSS pages from WP:US/S that are currently unprotected. See MediaWiki:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Compare link.js for one way that this can be fixed. This represents a potentially dangerous security vulnerability in Wikipedia, as a single person with decent knowledge of JavaScript could put malicious code in any one of these without even logging in. Looking through WP:US/S, I found about 50 pages that should be moved to the MediaWiki namespace or protected. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, just noticed some of these are already protected. In that case, just protect any that aren't already. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All the pages listed above are now protected except for Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css. Despite not being a JavaScript page, I think this should still be protected, as we don't want anyone to be able to edit other people's user CSS either. A creative vandal could quite easily exploit this to change at will how pages appear to anyone with the script installed. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a bot already taking care of this; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, looks good then. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Alison ❤ 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotect article. The semi-protection was a pre-emptive one by the protecting admin and doesn't seem to have been placed up due to any existing conflict. Regardless, it's been a while and probably isn't needed anymore. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - it's been over two months now, no prot explanation was provided, admin was already involved on article. Will followup with the protecting admin - Alison ❤ 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove semi-permanent protection Admin protected page without time limit nearly a month ago, and has declined to set a reasonable time limit. The dispute has been under discussion for a long time now, and it is time to see if any constructive changes can result. If edit warring resumes, then the page should be re-protected with a reasonable time limit each time. Semi-permanent protection of policy pages is not a good precedent. Dhaluza 11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - It's actually fully-protected due to edit-warring. The protect logs are horrific and show constant issues. Furthermore, the talk page is still highly active with heated discussion and very little progress. Please followup with the protecting admin on this one. Thanks - Alison ❤ 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - this is also a heated topic here on WP:ANI - Alison ❤ 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect article and talk. The majority of the disruption is focused on the addition of a specific link combined with a questionable or incorrect interpretation, and is currently handled by an anti-vandalism bot as the link in question does not exist on the pages in question. If the disruption returns, the pages can be protected once again (Be sure to state this in the edit summary for unprotection.) --Sigma 7 03:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way - page re-protection won't necessarly go through WP:RFPP, there are some admins that are already familiar with the situation that can reprotect the page. As the dispute is with the Mousepad article, the bot should be good enough to keep other pages from having the link inserted (as shown in WP:LTA#User:Moisesxyz). --Sigma 7 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - I'm already familiar with the mousepad issue from WP:RFPP here[1]. This article was only recently protected and that protection was explicitly extended by another admin & with good reason. I'm reluctant to unprot after such short time, given the prior history here. Sorry - Alison ❤ 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Constant vandalism by IP user on a non-constant IP. Maelwys 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=166899407"