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
Tiptoety (talk | contribs)
47,300 edits
Requesting semi-protection of The Little Nyonya. (TW)
Line 13: Line 13:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
==== {{la|The Little Nyonya}} ====
'''Temporary semi-protection''' ''vandalism'', Vandalism by blocked user [[User:Shabushabu|Shabushabu]], who is circumventing his block with IPs to insert non-NPOV contents, as well as defaming and attacking me.[[User:Arbiteroftruth|Arbiter]]of[[User talk:Arbiteroftruth|truth]] 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|Windows 7}}====
===={{la|Windows 7}}====

Revision as of 15:57, 12 January 2009


"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, Vandalism by blocked user Shabushabu, who is circumventing his block with IPs to insert non-NPOV contents, as well as defaming and attacking me.Arbiteroftruth 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Rampant vandalism by both IPs and SPAs. I can't see this clearing up whilst the beta continues. --Blowdart | talk 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months. Tiptoety talk 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite or long-term semi-protection. Rampant IP vandalism since previous semi-protection was lifted about a month ago. This has happened every time the page has been unprotected (3 or 4 times in toto) since I have been watching it. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. I am usually against indefinite semi-protection but that's a vandal-magnet par excellence. SoWhy 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism my multiple IPs the past month.— RyanCross (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Just one IP within the last three days. SoWhy 09:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. Vandalism, violations of the 3RR rule, edit wars, personal attacks, ethnic attacks etc. by multiple IPs and new "misterious" editors since the creation of this page. See history: [1] This has happened every time the page has been unprotected (3) times. I have had enough of it. please protect the article! Thank you!Baxter9 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one month. Tan | 39 15:22, 12 January 2009 (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.

    Open the article and block me. I don't understand what has happened but that should not stand in the way of others even those i edit warred with.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Your self-criticism is laudable and I agree that protection is unnecessary when single users can be identified and blocked but please ask the protecting admin, Okiefromokla (talk · contribs), for unprotection first. SoWhy 08:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected by Okiefromokla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety talk 15:30, 12 January 2009 (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.

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

    This used has been blocked indefinitely because of spam and because of promoting a vague theory that he is The Beatles' real Doctor Robert. He did exactly the same on nl:Wikipedia and is about to be blocked there, too. On this protected user page, however, are still quite some external links that need to be removed as they were only placed there by this user for promotion. Especially the one in his signature (to his own company) needs to go. Could someone please remove all external links and in-text URLs? Thanks! Erik1980 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I just clicked one of the myspace-links and found out this guy actually has a band or project named "Doctor Robert". Obviously he's using Wikipedia for promotion and to gain extra visits to all those websites. Please remove a.s.a.p. Thanks! Erik1980 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done SoWhy 09:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I need access to my admin account. Please rollback the last edit.--chaser (away) - talk 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done SoWhy 09:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protection, I am asking that Michael Brandon’s page be semi-protected for the time being. Information regarding Michael’s drug addiction contains inaccuracies, claims with no sources, and it is incredibly biased. I have continuously removed references to the drug issue not because I wanted to cover it up like people are saying. So much of the material was false that it was hard to sort out what was fact or fiction. But people keep restoring the page. My constant removal of the details, which I consider to be untrue has caused me to be harassed, defamed, and insulted by other Wikipedia users. Michael’s addiction should be mentioned, but it shouldn’t be the basis of the entire article. There was more to Michael’s life than drugs. He also did a lot of positive things in the world like raising so much money for gay and AIDS related organizations. I believe that the page should be written from a neutral point of view. That is why I am asking for Michael Brandon’s page to be semi-protected so we can have time to sort out the details of what’s factual and rewrite the article.--Rainbowrabbit (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Please stop edit-warring, it is harmful, no matter if you think you are right. Please consider dispute resolution and/or request help at WP:XXX. Consider raising the issue at the BLP noticeboard. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to high level vandalism. I counted about 30 reverts in the last week, vastly due to anon. IP edits. Considering that the album is not due for release in at least two months and thus an increase in vandalism is inevitable, I think that a semi-protect would be appropriate. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, article and redirect repeatedly created and deleted (7 times!).Beeblebrox (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected. SoWhy 08:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Has been recreated twice. It took us a year from the first deletion to the second. One can assume recreation will happen soon..Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, one must assume that the next recreation will then only happen in a year if it took them a year the last time. Has not been recreated since deletion on Dec 13. SoWhy 08:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, This has been deleted twice and recreated, since it is about a youth political figure in some campus, there might be some issues with recreation in the future. .Cerejota (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, with only two recreations I think we can take that risk for now. SoWhy 08:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Continual IP vandalism, few legit edits. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Continuous vandalism by IP users.DiverseMentality 05:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism 216.93.231.133 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 08:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, For some odd reason MrShamrock continues removing the "ref improve" tag from a biographical article sadly lacking in references without any explanation beyond claiming he thinks it has enough (5 references for a handful of sentences on a multi paragraph articles). As the primary article editor, I do feel it needs ref improving and would rather he actually attempt to discuss this instead of edit warring over something like this..-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Edit-warring it may be, but WP:ANEW would be the correct venue for that. SoWhy 09:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, new target for ban-evading socks of User:Bambifan101.Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, there is no disruption that warrants protection. SoWhy 08:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Since December 18, a user with anonymous IP has been removing cited content in this page, claiming that it is "blatantly biased". The user refuses to discuss the change or engage in consensus building in the Talk Page. He has performed the exact same edit twelve times, seven in the last three days, though from different anonymous IP. I'm hoping that a semi-protection might encourage the user to engage in consensus building in the Talk Page, and/or obtain a permanent account. Magidin (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. This summary is deceptive. I have not removed content, merely trimmed bloated and tendentious verbiage, e.g., replacing "state laws that tried to eliminate unfair treatment of labor by big business" (which the Horsemen "were bitterly opposed to") by the clear and neutral "state labor laws". On the talk page this user makes clear their disdain for the subjects of this article, and is using (with another user) reversion of all changes to WP:OWN the article. This move is a power play to lock me out. The user has shown no genuine interest in consensus but reverts every edit I make. 67.42.2.70 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected. The edits by the IP are not vandalism but edit-warring with two established editors who edit-war against it. SoWhy 08:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect This article is a regular sea of IP vandalism. Magic♪piano 03:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, There has been a considerable increase in vandalism on this page by unregistered IPs. It would be great if we could get semi-protection for a bit until this activity subsides. Thanks!.Plastikspork (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, vandalism. Elbutler (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined As I stated below, protection is not the best way to handle vandalism originating for a solitary IP. Please warn the user and report to WP:AIV. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Jayen466 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, I think this page should be protected to only established users for a week or two. A user keeps adding a line linking to a file sharing site containing a media file of the theme song for this. The user has been warned many times to quit and keeps making new accounts for some reason to do it..Jwjkp (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I think an IP block for a day or so might be in order for the user doing this. Jwjkp (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to User talk:Kaboodlesan for an example of one place he was warned to stop by me. He has also been told by others (on his other accoutns) that he is linking to copyrighted data that does not belong in the article. He shows no signs of intending to stop and as far as I'm concerned it will continue to be an issue until the article is protected for a while. Jwjkp (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If this vandal persists, please contact me and/or report here and we will protect for a longer period of time. Semi-protection should be adequate, as the user never uses the same account long enough to get autoconfirmed. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Forum spamming by multiple IP addresses..Themfromspace (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 05:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, IP continues to re-add false information. Elbutler (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Vandalism coming from one IP is best handled with user warnings and reports to WP:AIV. I have warned the user. If they persist, then report them to AIV for a block. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection vandalism, I count ~20 reverts in the last week alone. I'm unsure whether that's enough to justify semi, but because those are the only edits, it might be worth doing so..NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=263601963"