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
+1
Requesting semi-protection of Shark. (TW)
Line 16: Line 16:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
==== {{la|Shark}} ====
'''temporary semi-protection''' ''Vandalism'', High level of new user/IP vandalism all throughout the the month of October. Page is already move protected. .[[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

===={{la|John Titor}}====
===={{la|John Titor}}====
'''Semi-protection''' IP edit warring, attempting to reinstate older version of article without any support from the talk page. Requesting uninvolved admin to to protect as I have reverted the IP a couple of times, although I feel that this is borderline vandalism. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection''' IP edit warring, attempting to reinstate older version of article without any support from the talk page. Requesting uninvolved admin to to protect as I have reverted the IP a couple of times, although I feel that this is borderline vandalism. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:50, 2 November 2008



"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.

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, High level of new user/IP vandalism all throughout the the month of October. Page is already move protected. .Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection IP edit warring, attempting to reinstate older version of article without any support from the talk page. Requesting uninvolved admin to to protect as I have reverted the IP a couple of times, although I feel that this is borderline vandalism. --Leivick (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection again. Anon vandalism. IceUnshattered [ t ] 23:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Story of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection , Anon users have continually removed sourced information in the past day..Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection frequent vandalism mainly by anon. IPs. Sssoul (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GbT/c 21:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection I notice page is being vandalized frequently by anon. IPs. Previous semi-protection has expired. Terrek (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one IP, warn and report for block if needed. SoWhy 21:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection Ongoing harrassment from anon IPs [1] TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GbT/c 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is constant edit-warring, has had bans for 3RR violations, deleting requests to admin for intervention against him, tried to create new account while banned etc 189.19.250.9 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whereas you, clearly, are not a sockpuppet....GbT/c 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, vandalism by numerous IP addresses. Ollie Fury Contribs 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GbT/c 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Long standing problems, check log. Lot's of unsourced info being added and violations of WP:BADCHARTS. — Realist2 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. GbT/c 20:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, really, lol, I'm sorry. Damn. Fully protection, pretty please? ;-/ — Realist2 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the contribution history, my suggestion would be instead to take it to WP:RFCU - there's clearly a whole farm of socks in there somewhere... GbT/c 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCU have a public holiday like every other day, that's a painfully slow process. — Realist2 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without weeding out the underlying issues, full protection is just papering over the cracks...in the meantime you could always see if anyone breaches WP:3RR, gets blocked, and then use the poor man's checkuser. GbT/c 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks anyway. Certainly a first, requesting protection on something already protected. We can pretend this never happen right. ;-) — Realist2 20:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens more often than you'd think...and I'm sure no-one was watching anyway. GbT/c 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Request for temporary semi-protection. Refereed a soccer/football match this afternoon and made a string of controversial decisions to deny Derby County the win - page is being IP vandalised presumably by Derby fans. Semiprot for a few days should be fine. Chavster01 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GbT/c 20:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I had to remove some non-NPOV comment as well, but my most recent edit should be fine. Chavster01 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    URGENT!!! Semi prot should be fine tho.

     Done — Realist2 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Request for permanent semi-protection. Whenever unprotected the article is vandalized continuously by IPs. The article has been semi-protected three times in the past for periods of several months during which there has been no vandalism. The vandalism results from the nature of the readership and it not topical or transitory. Permanent semi-protection will save administrator time. Canon (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GbT/c 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Article has been vandalized numerous times from IPs. Rvk41 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tan | 39 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection – significant levels of recent IP vandalism. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 17:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full Protection Content dispute, numerous editors. Grsz11 →Review! 17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, seems to have stopped. SoWhy 17:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    {Edit conflict), I agree with the decline, not sure if it has "stopped". Bring back here if it escalates. Tan | 39 17:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Considerable IP vandalism over the past few days. -- Commdor {Talk} 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. Tan | 39 17:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Request permanent semi-protection or full protection for both cash gifting and cash gifting program, as both have had content promoting the scheme or "explaining" it in a promotional tone. Those wishing to profit from such schemes are likely to create new accounts in order to advertise in those articles in the future. Intention is to block new users from promoting the scam; not insisting upon full protection since someone might want to write a legitimate, in-depth explanation of this particular scheme (such as the Ponzi scheme article), though perhaps it should be added to the pyramid scheme article first until the section is large enough to warrant its own article. In that case, fully protect both articles and let someone ask for permission to split the cash gifting section into one of the protected pages. DOSGuy (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. I understand your intention, but it doesn't happen often enough to protect the articles. Tan | 39 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're saying, but is there any reason not to protect them? Every edit so far has been negative, and it's unlikely that there will ever be enough constructive content on this topic to ever warrant an entire article, instead of adding a section to pyramid scheme. It seems unlikely that there will ever be a constructive edit to those articles, so they will never need to be anything but redirects, so there's no harm in protecting them, but potential harm in not protecting them. Normally that would only be a nuisance, but a lot of people (88.1% of participants apparently) lose a lot of money in these things. While I normally err on the side of unprotection, in this case it seems like there's no reason not to at least semi-protect. DOSGuy (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The subjective reasoning of it being "unlikely that there will ever be a constructive edit" is not appropriate to apply to this situation. Per Wikipedia protection policy, "semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." Non-constructive edits happen daily to almost every article on Wikipedia, and through the vigilance of vandal-fighters and watchlisters, almost all are reverted. This is the price we pay for a Wiki project. The fact that people lose money on these schemes seems rather irrelevant to the case; it is not for Wikipedia to decide whether or not editors or casual readers participate in Ponzi schemes. Tan | 39 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that vandalism shouldn't be predicted for normal pages, but not for redirect pages. Redirect pages are what they are because they are not intended to ever have any content, either because they contain spelling mistakes, are alternate names for the same subject, or otherwise duplicate the content of the page they redirect to. By their very nature, the only reason to edit a redirect page is to vandalize it. Redirect pages should be at least semi-protected by default. Protecting these pages is the logical thing to do, but the rules forbid it, so the rules must change! If the rules forbid logic, they can't be good rules! I won't argue the decline any further, but I hope you'll support my bid to change the rules concerning redirect pages. I see that Tombstone has already called for this to happen at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Permanently semi-protecting redirects. I hope everyone will join this discussion. :) DOSGuy (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. Vandalism from IP user 60.50.25.112(talk)/218.111.9.29(talk) who is unwilling to discuss the issue in the Talk page but prefers to take matters into his own hands. Planenut(Talk) 05:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Tan | 39 15:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IP user seems to have a dynamic IP address as seen with his latest revert 60.50.17.207. Planenut(Talk) 18:28, 2 November 2008 (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.

    Can this please be unprotected. This is not a content dispute, the original request was to protect the article from an IP vandal removing content and POV editing. The IP editor broke WP:3RR during that spree of editing, not to mention stomping all over WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and utterly ignoring WP:Consensus. The only reason a 3RR report was not filed was the IP vandal has used multiple IP addresses and a block seemed pointless. All editors want to do is restore the sourced content that was removed, and to re-add the source that had also been removed. It is very frustrating that the admins who've looked at this have not taken the time to realise that the IP vandalism's sole contribution to the talk page is to crow that the current locked version is his. Someone commented yesterday "Use the talk page and look for a consensus. If the IP editor refuses to participate, or is the only opposition, then you will have a consensus." Well, we have used the talk page, we have looked for consensus, he has refused to participate and he is the only opposition. Oh I'll grant you its an intelligent piece of vandalism, the first part of the edit looks quite reasonable (but in actually fact only adds a source to something already sourced) but the content removed further down is pure vandalism, not to mention separating a statement from its source, and then deleting it. A clever piece of POV editing by someone who knows how to game the system. Justin talk 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Move protection remains. GbT/c 21:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Justin talk 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please unprotect creating of this page. I wanna to add an article about this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.202.230 (talk • contribs)

    DeclinedYou're not a registered editor, so cannot create articles anyway, but in any event if you were I'd tell you to create it in your userspace first...GbT/c 20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I'll Register. Thank You and See You in my userspace then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.202.230 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you tell me what your username is...! GbT/c 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ArhiMan. Where should I put the text for review. On my User:ArhiMan page or somewhere else? Thank You for your help on this! ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArhiMan (talk • contribs)
    Put it at User:ArhiMan/Sandbox. No problem. GbT/c 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm requesting this article to be unprotected because it was mainly a misunderstanding on both sides which caused the protection. The reason of protection was six reverts in less than two hours made by me. I misunderstood the intent of Yellow Evan and failed to notify him of his actions which I thought were not constructive. His intent was to improve the article to Featured status by adding more images, but the images were not that useful towards improving the article. Most of the reverts were just placement of images, left or right, nothing extreme. I've contacted Yellow Evan about this request for unprotection and hopefully this can be straightened out soon. My apologies for this incident. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This would destroy everything, I was trying to get this to featured. This the first time this has happened to Cyclonebiskit and we all every now and then forget. True these were just a few words or an image for the MH. I took a comparison to Hurricane Ioke wchich has 5 images this one has three and this has a lot of info and many images thanks to Keith Ediks. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, I think YE is agreeing to the unprotection...so Unprotected GbT/c 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for 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.

    New Future-class tracking functionality as per requested diff in the talk page. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done لennavecia 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    New request - minor error fix; see talk page for specifics. Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done In the future, please try to test things in a sandbox to avoid multiple requests. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, This is the forth time this has been vandlized.Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 15:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There seems to be a lot of productive activity from IP users and only a bit of vandalism, Metros (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been vandalized in the past although it is true that Wikipedia:not every IP is a vandal

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.iMatthew (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GbT/c 15:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, This dispute started a couple days ago, with the result that one editor was blocked for 3RR violations. He has returned and now "threatens" to expand parts of the article with more unreferenced or poorly referenced material that is clearly a WP:BLP violation. Please place page protection until dispute mediation has been pursued. Thank you..Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. As far as I see it, no dispute mediation is necessary - this user is an SPA, doesn't work with others, has civility issues, and has now been blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection. A lot of edit wars going on with this article. One is whether or not LGA is considered a Delta hub. Second is recently Delta and Northwest closed their merger to form the world's largest carrier and many IPs and some registered users have been putting NWA information into the DL page as if DL and NW have become 1 airline. The airlines are still operating as seperate carriers and won't consolidate for another 1 to 2 years. Cashier freak (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Left a note at the article talk page; seems like the anon editor is engaging in discussion, however haughtily. Tan | 39 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection - Increased vandalism. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP user seems determined to showcase unoriginality to the world..Vianello (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection - Considerable IP and single-purpose account vandalism. -- Commdor {Talk} 03:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Metros (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect' Repeated vandalism from multiple editors who are not logged in 75.89.134.30 (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Metros (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Persistent vandalism. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Metros (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Maxis ftw (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Metros (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    After an IP vandal removed content, using multiple addresses to avoid a block, I asked for semi-protection. Unfortunately the admin who dropped by imposed full-protection after deciding it was a content dispute. The IP vandal's sole contribution to dicussion is to crow that the locked version is his own. I've asked for for it to be unprotected once already and it's declined because the dispute "isn't resolved". IP vandal has not responded to dicussion attempts other than crowing the locked version is his. Since when did we allow IP vandals to hold an article hostage to their dictating a "content dispute"? Justin talk 21:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use the talk page and look for a consensus. If the IP editor refuses to participate, or is the only opposition, then you will have a consensus. Horologium (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is precisely the situation we already have. So please, pretty please, can we have it unprotected. Justin talk 22:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full create protection repeated recreation of vandalism. Cunard (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Salted for 3 months. Tan | 39 00:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Some edit warring on the article has been happening. I'll rather protecting the page for a few days so it can be discussed on the talk page then having editors banned for now..Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 48 hours. Tan | 39 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    unprotection, protected a while ago after a vandal, I don't need it any more. Thanks! DavidWS (contribs) 23:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Tan | 39 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Bremerenator (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected infinitely per user request. However, three examples of vandalism (and several months between them) is not persistent vandalism for your future reference. Metros (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=249289992"