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 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!--
<noinclude><!--


⚫
===={{1a|Melanie Johnson}}====
⚫
'''Temporary semi-protection''', Daily tendentious editing from user:Shakehandsman. Factually incorrect information added which is unsourced or poorly sourced. Motive unknown but this user continually makes tendentious edits on Female Politician's wiki pages. This is a biography of a living person and Shakehandsman is addig information which is not in concordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Attempts to edit out factually incorrect or biased material has resulted in numerous emails from this user. User Shakehandsman has sent this message: "If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Melanie Johnson, you will be blocked from editing. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)"~~~~




Line 17: Line 13:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}


⚫
===={{1a|Melanie Johnson}}====
⚫
'''Temporary semi-protection''', Daily tendentious editing from user:Shakehandsman. Factually incorrect information added which is unsourced or poorly sourced. Motive unknown but this user continually makes tendentious edits on Female Politician's wiki pages. This is a biography of a living person and Shakehandsman is addig information which is not in concordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Attempts to edit out factually incorrect or biased material has resulted in numerous emails from this user. User Shakehandsman has sent this message: "If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Melanie Johnson, you will be blocked from editing. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)"[[User:ARFCRFarfcrf|ARFCRFarfcrf]] ([[User talk:ARFCRFarfcrf|talk]]) 10:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


===={{lu|Example}}====
===={{lu|Example}}====

Revision as of 10:13, 4 February 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.


    Template:1a

    Temporary semi-protection, Daily tendentious editing from user:Shakehandsman. Factually incorrect information added which is unsourced or poorly sourced. Motive unknown but this user continually makes tendentious edits on Female Politician's wiki pages. This is a biography of a living person and Shakehandsman is addig information which is not in concordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Attempts to edit out factually incorrect or biased material has resulted in numerous emails from this user. User Shakehandsman has sent this message: "If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Melanie Johnson, you will be blocked from editing. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)"ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full move protection - Serves as an example user page (highly visibility). No reason for it to be moved. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 09:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Constant addition of unreferenced controversial material, as with BBC and Jeremy Vine already protected for the same reason. Stephenb (Talk) 08:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 09:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Prior semi-protection expired less than a week ago, and ever since then, the article has been a target of a lot of vandalism again. -- Luke4545 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection and move protection - Highly visible anon user page. Edits to the page should not be needed at all. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, as below. If there server admins were concerned, they could care for protection themselves. They haven't, so why should we? SoWhy 09:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:127.0.0.1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    (Possible?) Full protection and move protection - Highly visible anon user talk page that is highly unlikely to be blocked or make edits that would violate any of Wikipedia's policies. Thus, warning templates or any messages to the anon user shouldn't be needed. As stated on the page (which has been removed and re-added recently), any edits originating from this IP are being made from the Wikimedia master server for enwiki in Tampa, Florida, and was done by one of Wikimedia's system administrators. It is also often used as a sandbox for testing tools such as Twinkle, Friendly, and Huggle, which require a user talk page. Users who wish to test such tools should do so on User talk:Sandbox for user warnings instead. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, no need. And I am very concerned that you reverted edits by a bureaucrat and administrator as vandalism. You should really not do that because it implies bad faith editing by Deskana (talk · contribs · rights · renames). SoWhy 09:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't notice that he is a bureaucrat and administrator. I just now checked Special:ListUsers (verify) and I've found he is (not to mention he also has checkuser and oversight rights too). Guess I should apologize on his user talk page right now. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 09:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr....no, I'm not Deskana. You were correct with the previous phrasing ;-) SoWhy 09:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The template you used ({{crat|Deskana}}) threw me off at first glance. Sorry about that. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full protection and move protection - Highly visible example user talk page which is often used as a sandbox for testing tools such as Twinkle, Friendly, and Huggle, which require a user talk page. Users who wish to test such tools should do so on User talk:Sandbox for user warnings instead, which is already stated on the page. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected. SoWhy 09:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, when I said "full protection", I meant "full edit protection". --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 09:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The article has been continuously vandalized (false information, content removed, derogatory statements, etc.) by many IP addresses over the last couple of days. 132 04:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two days. Tiptoety talk 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, majority of IP edits are either unconstructive or unsourced and not immediately reverted. This has been going on for too long now. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, too many IP editors adding fan-speculation to article, and minor-vandalism. moocowsruletalk to moo 04:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection, recent target of page move vandalism; cities are almost unlikely to be renamed; neither is this article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected Tiptoety talk 05:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Main Page (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Persistent vandalism, again. –  LATICS  talk  04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, it's usually consensus not to protect the talk page of a page that has been protected (like the Main Page). Also, this page is probably one of the most admin-frequented pages and if needed, they'd have protected it already. SoWhy 08:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Repeated vandalism and falsely posted "recent deaths" banner. It's already been discussed in the press, there's no need for another Ted Kennedy. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 08:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page is continually semi-vandalized by adding information that seems like it would fit, but has no references anywhere on the internet to back it up. Cannot restructure and clean up the article due to constantly keeping up with vandals and poor edits. Requesting a temporary semi-protect to allow for the opportunity to improve the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Persistent vandalism from at least 3 different IP addresses in past 24 hours. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection - same deal as the one below. ~ Troy (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected. SoWhy 08:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, as soon as the last protection expired vandalism started again. Elbutler (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Edit warring by several IPs in the last few days over a POV tag. Yilloslime (t) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Giving him one last chance. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Youtube star's BLP article is the subject of a lot of anonymous vandalism and original research. THF (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Was temporarily fully protected, and some things were discussed on talk page. I believe a way forward has been highlighted. –xeno (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect (New vandalism)

    • All of the vandalism is coming from unregistered or newly registered users.
    • ”There are regularly many new vandals, therefore it would be a huge unending task to notify and warn all the vandals individually”. (or in this case filing Sockpuppet reports against them)
    • Today 25% of the edits are vandalism (2 revert of vandalism, one edit by IP-user (spread in many smaller edits) and one vandal revert). Yesterday it was 100% (only one edit), Febuary 1th 4 attacks. This has been going on since August 2008, limited only by continuing Sockpuppet-blocking. Siru108 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 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.

    Very limited IP vandalism prior to protection, rather the opposite, as IP edits in the week before protection were mostly productive. Per WP:SEMI: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." Grsz11Review 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Tiptoety talk 05:07, 4 February 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.

    Immediate attention is requested, as the requested edit is somewhat time-sensitive. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. by Ruslik0. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is protected through the cascading option. I request this edit because the Makemake (dwarf planet) article is currently today's featured article, and the template is thus high-vis. The edit is simply that the heading of the template currently points to Makemake, a disambiguation page, rather than the the correct Makemake (dwarf planet) article. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done bibliomaniac15 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary full protection dispute, Another editor completely unfamiliar with the project is adding text to the MoS based on a minor dispute, despite no consensus for this change. Attempting to discuss, but he continues readding the bad text despite the on-going discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    [Temporary] Semi-protection. Was unprotected yesterday (post-Super Bowl), but has received several cases of vandalism since, and doesn't seem to be stopping. TheAE talk/sign 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Excessive vandalism. Willking1979 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection, page is being edited by a user whose name shows as "????", i cannot access his talk page to post notices that this page is a negatively sourced BLP. user ???? keeps removing speedy delete templates. Looks like somebody hacked something here to get that name. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Already deleted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Create protection Been created and deleted many, many, many times. astatine-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: take it up with the unprotecting admin first. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Create protection. Speedied four times.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection, Subject to pagemove vandalism. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection, IPs constantly vandalize the page every 5 miniutes. Elbutler (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite protection is not an option with the article. The IP vandalism will die down once the news cycle runs its course. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection Heavy vandalism. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. RexNL (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:173.23.149.28 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection User will not stop blanking out his/her warnings. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Please see WP:BLANKING. Tiptoety talk 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandal seems to have stopped and found something better to do anyways. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Article recently targetted by spam account User:Daremedareyou, who has now been blocked for spamming. Since the block, the spam edits have been regularly repeated by a diverse group of IP addresses. Mayalld (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Anonymous user keeps changing info, using different IP addresses each time. Garavello (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Normally semi-protection is not used for anything that looks like a content dispute, but since attempts at communication have clearly failed and that this user is behaving unilaterally and disruptively, I have semi-protected both pages. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Frequent information removal by IPs or single-shot accounts. I usually reverted it but now I am taking a break for a month. Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one edit in the last few days, Hunterpbr (talk · contribs) is autoconfirmed (i.e. semi-protection won't work) and still has a red talk page, I would suggest contacting him/her directly if there is an issue with his/her edits. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Article has been vandalized several times by IP accounts in the last few days. Farix (Talk) 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Quite a lot of vandalism, but it seems to be being kept on top of, and some IPs/new accounts have being making constructive edits, and if possible these should not be locked out. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection vandalism, current vandalism from 2 different IPs. Tckma (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Appears to have been a one off instant of coordinated vandalism between two IPs. Although the IPs are stale, given the severity of their edits, I have blocked them both for 31 hours just to be on the safe side. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=268444524"