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
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
'''Temporary full protection''' [[User:TastyCakes]] keeps trying to nominate this article for deletion after previous vote outcomes have been to '''keep''' the article. I assume good faith but I believe his political bias has led him to continually attack this article. This article has been nominated for deletion at least two times before. TastyCakes has also gone after every other political activist article in the Ottawa area, mainly [[Denis Rancourt]] and [[Jane Scharf]] (which is now deleted).[[User:Strummingbabe|Strummingbabe]] ([[User talk:Strummingbabe|talk]]) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
'''Temporary full protection''' [[User:TastyCakes]] keeps trying to nominate this article for deletion after previous vote outcomes have been to '''keep''' the article. I assume good faith but I believe his political bias has led him to continually attack this article. This article has been nominated for deletion at least two times before. TastyCakes has also gone after every other political activist article in the Ottawa area, mainly [[Denis Rancourt]] and [[Jane Scharf]] (which is now deleted).[[User:Strummingbabe|Strummingbabe]] ([[User talk:Strummingbabe|talk]]) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)



===={{la|Melanie Jane Johnson}}====

'''Semi-protection''' Biography of living person. Abuse of page. Persistent vandalism, with factually incorrect unsourced or unreferenced malicious information added by variety of users e.g. by user Shakehandsman [[User:ARFCRFarfcrf|ARFCRFarfcrf]] ([[User talk:ARFCRFarfcrf|talk]]) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures}}====
===={{la|Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures}}====

Revision as of 18:46, 19 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.

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, I don't see why this was unprotected. The vandalism has skyrocketed since unprotection..Jonathan321 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection User:TastyCakes keeps trying to nominate this article for deletion after previous vote outcomes have been to keep the article. I assume good faith but I believe his political bias has led him to continually attack this article. This article has been nominated for deletion at least two times before. TastyCakes has also gone after every other political activist article in the Ottawa area, mainly Denis Rancourt and Jane Scharf (which is now deleted).Strummingbabe (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Biography of living person. Abuse of page. Persistent vandalism, with factually incorrect unsourced or unreferenced malicious information added by variety of users e.g. by user Shakehandsman ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection, edit-warring by disruptive user. Elbutler (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Only one user; should be dealt with individually. Plenty of regular users on the scene to moderate. Tan | 39 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect, New target of Bambifan101's socks. Elbutler (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Tan | 39 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite full protection user talk of blocked user, Inappropriate use of talk page by indefinitely blocked user. .Onorem♠Dil 15:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Tan | 39 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. This IP: 79.111.XXX.XX. Keep reverting and claims this product will would be released on March 2009. He/She has not added any reliable source to claim this. This product also was currently cancelled and i have added the reliable source to prove the point. This User does not say anything but reverts and reverts. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. Tan | 39 15:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Leolisa1997 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, two edits in the last month. You're joking, right? Stifle (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree; I even checked all the redirect pages - nothing in years. Tan | 39 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Fully protection lifted, indefinite semi-protection needs to be restored. Thanks..iMatthew // talk // 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Seemingly a revert warring brewing when two IP addresses won't heed request to discuss their addition prior to content add. Quaeler (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Only one or two reverts in the space of a few days. --Deskana (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection Persistent vandalism The page experiences heavy IP vandalism (often vulgar), especially from shared school IPs. The page has been given short term semi-protection twice before (page protection log), and vandalism usually starts up again right after the semi-protection expires. About 2/3rds of edits made are either vandalism or reverts of vandalism. Almost all anonymous edits are vandalism. Vandalism from the last week: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --LK (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Not enough activity to justify protection. For instance, there has been no vandalism today, and there was none yesterday or the day before. This is not what I would call heavy vandalism. --Deskana (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: A plethora of unconstructive edits have been made to the article recently. -- Luke4545 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week. Tan | 39 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, For some reason, this article is a constant target of IP vandalism attack which takes a considerable amount of attention to revert on a daily basis. .Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tan | 39 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Cssiitcic/Archive 3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection, This page is one of my talk archives. There is absolutely no purpose for anyone to edit this page..Cssiitcic (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - there are circumstances (WP:RTV is one example) where talk archives should be edited. Kusma (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Cssiitcic/Archive 2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection, This page is one of my talk archives. There is absolutely no purpose for anyone to edit this page..Cssiitcic (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - there are circumstances (WP:RTV is one example) where talk archives should be edited. Kusma (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Cssiitcic/Archive 1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection, This page is one of my talk archives. There is absolutely no purpose for anyone to edit this page..Cssiitcic (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - there are circumstances (WP:RTV is one example) where talk archives should be edited. Kusma (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, This page has been been experiencing an increase in unreferenced-spoiler vandalism by anon IPs. It would be great if we could get semi-protection for about three weeks until after the season finale airs. Thanks!.Plastikspork (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 19 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.

    Unprotection, The page has been semi-protected for four months now. I don't think pages should be protected indefinitely. Also, I thought it was policy not to protect articles while they are featured on the frontpage? If you think unprotecting it while it is featured is a bad idea, my request will be to unprotect it as soon as it is off the frontpage instead..-Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection. Indefinitely blocked user. LucerneWorkeruser • talk • contribs 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Tan | 39 17:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably got something to do with this strange quacking sound. GbT/c 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection. A month of semi-protection just seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, considering a lot of people will be viewing this article and a lot of work is needed in the next 2 weeks. It was semi-protected because of the burst of vandalism when the two teams were revealed, but that always subsides after an hour or two if you look at past Superbowl articles. IP vandalism will likely be manageable until the game itself actually starts. --Rividian (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Please contact protecting admin User:Rich Farmbrough. Tan | 39 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Please provide a non-bureaucratic response. --Rividian (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, okay. Hey Rividian, it would probably be in good form for you to go contact the guy who protected it in the first place. Tan | 39 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? He was the one who thought this period of protection was a good idea... do you think it's a good idea? --Rividian (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, I could go either way, I guess. It's probably going to see a lot of IP vandalism in the next few weeks. The point here is that I'm not going to overturn his decision based on my own opinion; I don't think any policy or guidelines were broken here. Of course I have the prerogative to change it; it's courteous to involve the protecting admin in the decision, however. Tan | 39 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bureaucratic wasteland this place has become. Even if I'm just expecting us to follow a basic principle of Wikipedia, I'm still expected to dance for the bureaucracy. --Rividian (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, perhaps you'll have more respect for this decision: Declined. Tan | 39 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh snap, you sure told me. I now see there are things more important than Wikipedia's founding principles... such as winning arguments on metapages against random people who hardly ever edit. --Rividian (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seemed to think that my suggestion to retain some semblance of courtesy and collaboration among a collaborative project was "bureaucratic" and insufficient. When I explained this to you rather nicely, despite your initial sarcasm, you proceeded to indirectly insult me by implying that I was part of a bureaucratic wasteland, whatever that means. I then decided to humor you and give you a decidedly non-bureaucratic answer - I decided that I, too, would have protected this for the same time period. If you think I did this as "revenge", or to win an argument, you are sadly mistaken to how much I care about your feelings towards me. Tan | 39 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) As with everything, the founding principles have to be balanced against a number of factors. Sure, it would be lovely to leave all the articles open for everyone to edit all the time, but it's impractical where an article is receiving high amounts of IP vandalism, as this one was right up until the moment the article was semi-protected. Tan's right in asking you to take this to Rich Farmborough in the first instance, because for someone to unprotect the article a few hours after he's put in place one month's protection is, frankly, rude. He had his reasonings in either putting the protection in place off his own bat, or in response to a request here. Put your views forward to him - if he agrees, all well and good, if he doesn't then bring it back here and you can get more admin eyes on it to see if the overall consensus is for or against the decision. One of us removing the protection without it having been discussed with the original protecting admin is to basically overturn his decision without the courtesy of seeking his input or views. GbT/c 18:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and that's enough, both of you - how about a nice cup of tea. GbT/c 18:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaaah attack of the bureaucrats. You guys have really screwed up Wikipedia badly. I'll go do something more productive now. --Rividian (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, Rividian has been blocked for wiping this page (a spectacular and disruptive textbook violation of WP:POINT)--Tznkai (talk) 18:30, 19 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.

    Teletubbies character articles

    The Teletubbies articles are at the wrong tagets, someone please fix that. For example: Dipsy is at Talk:Dipsy, and Po (Teletubby) is at Po (Teletubbies). Laa-Laa is at Laa Laa, and Tinky Winky is at Tinki Winki. Per this request, I say you go and put the content of these current ones at the right place and redirect the current ones to the right content. For Tinky Winky: "Per request, merging in from Tinki Winki", and for Tinki Winki: "#REDIRECT Tinky Winky: Per request". As for Dipsy, just say, "Per request, recreating from Talk:Dipsy" and for Talk:Dipsy: "restore talk page after merge in to mai target", or something along those lines. Also, Talk:Po (Teletubbies) should be moved to Talk:Po (Teletubby) with the reason Per request. Thank you! 70.146.254.101 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose this edit. This is not the right venue to undo merges and redirect, and, as I noted on ANI, the circumstances surrounding these anonymous edits are fishy, and the IPs might be socks.—Kww(talk) 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked.. The above IP was used by banned editor Bambifan101. Kanonkas :  Talk  18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Needs to be done. 68.220.187.213 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you need more attentive parents or an actually-entertaining video game. Go buzz, you're wasting our time. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore, that IP is another Bambifan101 sock. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this was a genuine problem (although had nothing to do with protection). An IP had changed these redirects into vandalism articles. I've reverted and protected the redirects. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, sharp uptick in vandalism from IPs.Enigmamsg 05:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Anon vandalism after finalists decided.Richiekim (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Ruslik (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This article has been drawing IP and new-user spammers over the past few days..Themfromspace (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. Ruslik (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection IP vandalism all of a sudden started within the past week out of nowhere. D.M.N. (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert. Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Repeatedly vandalised by multiple IPs..Graymornings(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism due to recent sport events.  Matthead  Discuß   00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, We've had an anon user making significant, controversial changes to the article for the past week or so. Two separate editors have been reversing him and asking him to discuss major changes, but he's refused to. Perhaps Semi-protection will force him to create a username and be accountable for his changes..Dali-Llama (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 6 months or until consensus is reached, whichever comes first. Semi-protection is expressly forbidden in a content dispute. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Plrk (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary create-protection, Continually being recreated by spammer promoting his illegal YouTube creations..-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - The earth hath been salted. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite create-protection, Multiple recreations, often as a copyvio.Mayalld (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by PMDrive1061. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection an edit war has been escalating for some time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a fortnight-two. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also:
    Template:Film needs cast section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Template:Filmimage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    These template are now depreacted and no longer transcluded anywhere. Protection is no longer required. PC78 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected all. VegaDark (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Anon editor keeps vandalizing the article with copyright violations and spam. Making named socks so blocking isn't working..-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Kanonkas :  Talk  04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite move-protection, High visibility page due to this movie with no real reason to be moved..Jonathan321 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Kanonkas :  Talk  02:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, I know this is ironic...Jonathan321 (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Kanonkas :  Talk  01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection. This IP: 92.11.56.213. Has entered into an edit war over an undiscussed change to page. Request semi-protection whilst discussion is ongoing. magnius (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=265124553"