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
→{{la|The Bunny}}: rm entry (perpetrating user was banned)
Line 199: Line 199:
'''Unprotect.''' The less said about this semi-protection the better. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.21.152|86.44.21.152]] ([[User talk:86.44.21.152|talk]]) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
'''Unprotect.''' The less said about this semi-protection the better. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.21.152|86.44.21.152]] ([[User talk:86.44.21.152|talk]]) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|nu}}. Not yet, maybe in a few months. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{RFPP|nu}}. Not yet, maybe in a few months. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::What's your reasoning? [[Special:Contributions/86.44.21.224|86.44.21.224]] ([[User talk:86.44.21.224|talk]]) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


===={{la|John McCain presidential campaign, 2008}}====
===={{la|John McCain presidential campaign, 2008}}====

Revision as of 01:50, 11 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.


    Talk:Space music (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi protection Vandalism, talk page entry modification by Milo despite warning. refusing to accept review of contentious WP:OR and WP:SYN based content. .Semitransgenic (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Vandalism There are frequent (almost daily) and blatant vandalism by anonymous IPs. Black and White 01:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Many users and ips have been placing in speculation that this person is leaving the company he works for under contract for another but there has been no source presented. Neither one reliable or non-reliable.WillC 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite cascading semi-protection Vandalism, If you look in the history of this article, you will see a large number of guest ip accounts vandalizing. I think this page should be protected from this kind of stuff. .Wikihelper12 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. Two named accounts edit warring; page may be deleted as is. HalfShadow 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Issue warnings to the offending users, block as necessary. Articles at AFD should not be protected either. لennavecia 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, IP Vandalism resumed immediately after expiration of last 60-day semi-protection..Tcncv (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three months. Tan | 39 01:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Fair amount of anon vandalism done on a near daily basis. Pinkadelica Say it... 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one month. Tan | 39 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection , There's no need for anyone to edit this page. the last 100 some edits have been vandalism. This page itself runs on different templates, so pretty much any edit to this page is pointless..- -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Tan | 39 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully-protection. A consensus was reached that the group fails notability at this point in time. It was placed as a redirect that one day it will possibly reach notability. The redirect has been removed multiple times by users who have been warned that it was a project consensus. I'm tried of the edit warring.WillC 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected indefinitely. Tan | 39 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protect frequenct active vandalism in last 48 hours from multiple IPs and new accounts. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for three days. Tan | 39 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protect on-going revert war between IPs reverting in and out an old version of the article. Semi-protection would (hopefully) bring them to the table (the talkpage). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. IP blocked for 3RR violation. Bring back here if it continues after block expires. Tan | 39 23:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Lots and lots and lots of vandalism from IP's and newly registered users..Sloan ranger (chat) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for six months. Tan | 39 23:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: The page is being flooded with IPs making edits regarding trade rumors. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 24 hours by User:Madchester. Tan | 39 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Many edits each day that are only vandalism and the reverting of that vandalism, persist since the page was unprotected. .Hardyplants (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PERMANENT semi-protection for ongoing IP vandalism that hasn't gone away when it's been semi-protected for weeks at a time before. Jefferson Davis is a lightning rod for racists and for CSA detractors. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for 1-2 weeks for persistent IP vandalism. Dunno why they like to pick on this one, but it's getting hit repeatedly--shall we see if a bit of semi-protection will deter them? Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. This article gets a lot of vandalism, which makes it hard to work with, especially when it fills up the watchlist with vandalism by anonymous editors. It gets, oh, 20 or 30 edits a day, and most do not add anything useful. The article was semi-protected a few times for short periods before. Gary King (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of pointless then? The article has proven that it will get consistently vandalized, and it is not related to something like a current event, etc. Gary King (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect indefinitely. This is a doppelganger of my account and has the doppenlganger tag on it. There is NO reason the tag should be removed by ANYONE.Cssiitcic (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected SoWhy 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for as long as possible. The article has seen semi protection several times before (five times, if I'm not mistaken), the most recent of which expired on 19 October, 2008. The page has seen consistent vandalism since then, and since the article is of fairly good quality (GA rated), the chance of new users making good faith edits is rather low. --Tavrian 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection : Non-communicative IP committing unexplained reverts often with no explanation. The IP has already added unsourced material or poorly sourced material multiple times, attempts to warn and communicate with IP have had no effect. Hopefully he will come to the talk page if protected. — Realist2 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, sorry, but if an IP or user is not willing to talk, blocks are the preferred method to stop them. SoWhy 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Multiple IP vandals have vandalized this page today (e.g. by adding anti-Semitic and sexually explicit remarks)..— ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinte semi-protection Constant stream of vandalism and unsourced information being added to the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. High IP vandalism. Many IPs have repeatedly made deconstructive edits, inserted unsourced content, and the article is now being drifted into an edit war. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection. High IP vandalism. Many IPs have repeatedly made deconstructive edits, inserted unsourced content, and/or removed sourced content without any explanation. europemayhem (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism has become heavy with IP's..--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection IP vandalism. D.M.N. (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we have this one re-reviewed. IP vandalism is continuing. D.M.N. (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I agree, although it's borderline. But some of the IPs are trying to do good faith edits and only few are real vandalism. Regards SoWhy 21:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Latest IP vandalism lasted for six hours, affecting Help:Editing, which is already semi-protected. Also consider the ten other unprotected templates used by Help:Editing. --Zigger «º» 09:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection. Repeated reverts by IP, who is edit warring over images containing copyright issues. The user has edited under multiple IPs within the 209.215.x.x domain range, so single IP blocks are not effective. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure semi will do, since this IP also has a couple user accounts they edit with. Asher196 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked & Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. --JForget 00:10, 10 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.

    Unprotect. Clearly notable American, but some of the admins seems emotionally involved. Jimbo left it at one line and unprotected, but that was over a year ago. This is definitely not a one-event person. It seems like the collaborative work that User:Jnc (now departed from Wikipeida) did in May 2005 really helped the article but then it became some sort of battleground, which is of little interest now. Let some neutral admins discuss and let us try again to achieve respectful, constructive collaboration and just ignore the pointless and unproductive emotion of the past, perhaps best exemplified by our first review of it. If we at least restore the article to the post-Jnc state, maybe we can encourage him to return.--LegalEagle2 (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Asked Jimbo... J.delanoygabsadds 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please get some action on this item? If Jimbo is too busy or whatever, then we should let the community do as it sees fit and thus the page should be unprotected.--LegalEagle2 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask the current protecting admin, User:Alison. Tan | 39 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. --LegalEagle2 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack removed. لennavecia 01:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected While I think Alison's judgment is probably just fine (and ZOMG she said the word "fuck"?), you're probably right about the protection. I unprotected it. Tan | 39 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Consensus has been reached on talk page; semi-protection should be remain, though.DiverseMentality 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Re-request protection if edit war resumes. SoWhy 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect Tom Hamilton was a Major League Baseball player who played in 1952 and 1953 for the Philadelphia Athletics. He also won the College World Series Most Outstanding Player Award in 1949. Therefore, he deserves a page because of his notability. All of his career and biographical information is backed up on trustworthy, notable sites like Baseball Reference and Baseball Almanac. I don't know the whole story as to why he was protected, but I do understand vandalism may have been involved. If vandalism is a fear, then fear not - I keep all the pages I start on my watchlist and revert any vandalism that occurs to any of them. Please unprotect Tom Hamilton. Alex (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - auburnpilot talk 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. The less said about this semi-protection the better. 86.44.21.152 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected. Not yet, maybe in a few months. Tan | 39 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your reasoning? 86.44.21.224 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. The article has some edit warriors (the same ones...over, and over, and over) Mean while, normal editors like myself, and two dozen other editors are unable to improve the article which is in poor shape. I recommend a lengthy block (5 days) for anyone who recommences the edit warring. This is the very reason why high-potential articles grow stagnant; a series of page protections like this one has had. IMO page protection should be used to prevent tenacious vandals, and only for short time frames. Edit warriors should be blocked, avoiding community punishment. Thanks, DigitalNinja 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected. The Wrong Version is the version of a page that is protected during an edit war. The Wrong Version is biased, nationalistic, libellous, inaccurate and a disgrace to Wikipedia in general. There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version. Note: current protection expires tomorrow. Tan | 39 00:24, 11 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Above article along with Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka & September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore. Indefinite semi-protection. Repeated pov pushings & reverts by two IP ranges (116.68.99.xx & 59.93.33.xx) of confirmed indef banned User:jobxavier, who is edit warring over some tags. So single IP blocks are not effective. Googlean Results 15:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. No, single blocks are not effective in such cases. But range-blocks are. There is a suspected sockpuppet case already at Wikipedia:SSP#User:116.68.99.91, I suggest you report those other IP ranges there to get complete rangeblocks. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection- Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism. Users adding non-relevant information. I am one of one, I am the only One. (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Vandalism, Flood of vandalism from IPs in the last few hours.. FlyingToaster 08:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.Bidgee (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. IP users adding non-relevant link. Perry mason (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i did warn them [1]. yeah i know i forgot about all the nice looking warning symbol and that stuff sorry. Perry mason (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see Perry - my apologies - although it appears you are talking about another IP (same edits so probably same person or meat puppet) and I have actually warned the second one now. Cheers. --VS talk 10:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Protection was removed some months ago, and asked for again yesterday. This was turned down ([2]), does this link change your minds? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect: Aggressive warring from IP editor (ten reverts in ten hours). Even if admin intervention is forthcoming, it is likely that the editor will head over to the nearest Starbucks to continue edit-warring if current static IP address is blocked. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect: Frenetic warring from IP editor. Although intervention has been requested, it is likely that the editor will head over to the nearest Starbucks to continue edit-warring if current static IP address is blocked. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Socks are editing page.iMatthew 03:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tan | 39 05:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Constant IP vandalism. This article has been protected before, but vandalism always begins as soon as it ends. Andrea (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for six months. Tan | 39 05:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The article's event is tonight and I suspect high levels of edit warring and vandalism. Already in the first hour of a three hour event the article has been edited probably more than twenty times and vandalized 3 or four times.WillC 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one day. Tan | 39 05:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Repeated insertions of POV statements by banned editor Hkelkar. 128.122.253.212 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, more like mass-blanking of statements by banned user BhaiSaab.72.179.45.224 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. by another admin. Tan | 39 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection: The article was semi-protected for almost a year, before protection was lifted in late October. Ever since then, many IPs have been repeatedly making unconstructive edits, inserting unsourced content, or removing sourced content without any explanation. -- Luke4545 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism? Content dispute? An IP editor is adding incorrect content. I've attempted to discuss the issue with them repeatedly, without any success. (Note listing below, too) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, there is another anonymous user making good contributions, so I would rather try to avoid semi-protection. Come back if the situation doesn't die down though. CIreland (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=251009565"