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
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|South Korea}}====
'''Full protection'''. Uncessant 3RR violations and abusive tagging warring is underway. Though the sections well covered with multiple citations were demoted by abusive tag applications, even without enough prior discussions. This article has been long been abused.[[User:Patriotmissile|Patriotmissile]] ([[User talk:Patriotmissile|talk]]) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


===={{la|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}====
===={{la|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}====

Revision as of 19:38, 22 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.

    Full protection. Uncessant 3RR violations and abusive tagging warring is underway. Though the sections well covered with multiple citations were demoted by abusive tag applications, even without enough prior discussions. This article has been long been abused.Patriotmissile (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Increase protection level. Someone recently snuck in a racist remark about President Obama. Also opponents of the legislation have been vandalising the article constantly.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Constant and unnecessary recreation, just text copied from Michael Gambon, the exact same person. Title's aren't really appropriate, as far as I'm aware. EclipseSSD (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It could be allowable, that's a Manual of Style matter, not an admin one. If you think it should go, consider WP:RFD to get rid of the redirect it's at currently. If it wars more, then it could be a permanent protection on the redirect, barring an RFD. rootology (C)(T) 17:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection, My User page has been vandalized by an IP address. I have reverted the vandalism, but I want to prevent it from happening again. User:Redsoxcool (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection, The article is the target of recent edits and copy/paste page moves that don't move the edit history with it by IP and registered editors alike. The show will be changing its name in a little over a week, but it hasn't changed the name yet. People are assuming that advertisements for the new name means the page should be changed and moved right now, as opposed to waiting until it actually happens. I feel a full protection will save it from more of this. I also feel that List of 17 Kids and Counting episodes, 18 Kids and Counting, and List of 18 Kids and Counting episodes be included in this protection. Thank you. 132 16:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 9 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That should cover the time frame in question. rootology (C)(T) 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, repeated vandalism from multiple IPs. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Various IPs, all resolving to the same ISP (and most likely all socks of User:Nimbley6), persisting in making the same edit, refusing to discuss on their talk pages, etc. Request short-term semi-protection. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. rootology (C)(T) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection high-visiblity template, This is a very very high visibility template. Smallman12q (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It's an image, not a template, and it's not even used on 500 pages currently. Plus, it's actually over on Commons. That's not busy enough to pre-emptively protect. rootology (C)(T) 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - An IP keeps coming to the article and adding unsourced information, and then leaving edit summaries telling everyone else (mainly directed at me) to go find the source for ourselves. I have tried to explain on their talk pages (the IP address keeps changing) that the onus is on them to supply a source and that means they have to go beyond just saying "it's here". They refuse to comply.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Continuous IP vandalism throughout the article's history. EclipseSSD (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. While there's some bursts, none recently, and we don't pre-emptively do this. IPs at this time do have a right to make good faith edits and a unilateral prot would be more harm than help. rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Article hasn't really changed much in the last two years but has been a regular victim of advertising edits. Rpvdk (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect or Indefinite semi-protection Constant IP and named user vandalism. This page has been protected several times before, but vandalism always resumes afer protection expires.Jasepl (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 months due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect: This page redirects to West Ridge Academy. However an IP user is continually changing it to be a copy of that page. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected. Semi-move protected indefinitely. Also, user blocked for 72 hours. Tan | 39 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Article has been vandalized by several User:Lpkids2006 sockpuppet IPs for the past month. -danngarcia (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 month due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for at least 1 month. IPs have repeatedly made this a page for a Filipino indie band, which had been deleted before. Check the history of Fig (band). If possible, a history merge would be useful. Tealwisp (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term to indef semi protection I'm no fan of this guy either, but throughout this article's history, anon IP users have added accusations involving the murders of Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. Knight was never charged, let alone convicted, in connection with those murders, so it's pretty big BLP issue. Lately it's been pretty much every day, and sometimes multiple things are added and BLP problems "slip through the cracks." Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tan | 39 16:17, 22 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.

    Edit Unprotection only, keep move protection, This is Today's featured article, per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, the TFA should only be protected for short periods, not for long durations such as the current 6 hours. There is a discussion on the talk page, and even though I am a sysop, I will not undo an admin action from a fellow MILHIST coordinator. -MBK004 04:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done per consensus at talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:48, 22 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Full Protection. Content dispute over content, 1,186 words were deleted today. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. rootology (C)(T) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, perhaps indefinitely. This article has long been subject to frequent vandalism, but in particular, it has recently been subjected to repeated questionable edits by Worldtaekwondofederation (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks); this user was blocked from editing for a 24-hour period on 28 January, and then blocked indefinitely on 17 February. Now, the same edits that this user repeatedly made are coming from 196.217.97.25 and 196.217.58.112. However, this single user is not the sole reason for this request; the page has frequently been vandalized from various other IP addresses as well, especially in the last month or so. Naturally, useful edits can certainly come from anonymous editors; but given the history of this particular article, I believe it could be better overall for it to be edited only by established editors. Omnedon (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Can be always later (and should be eventually) once consensus is for it. rootology (C)(T) 06:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi or Full Protection. An intial content dispute has now snowballed into an anon user (208.120.47.96) deleting various information without discussion. I tried to have a discussion and solving it by going here:[1] and the anon user's talk page: [2] but he has ignored both avenues and simply reverts and now is deleting various sourced information. NyRoc (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User NyRoc is simply engaging in an edit war. He deleted sourced material I placed in saying it was outdated. As such I deleted outdated information. His only reason for wanting protection is so I won't edit and he does for a few days. [3] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done more to get you to try and discuss things than you have but you refuse to and even as I write this you still are deleting things from the page and adding in negative contexts. Furthermore full protection wouldn't allow me to edit either. Your initial edit was dealt with back in November, the last time I had to get the page protected because you wouldn't discuss things and I had to ask the University policy page members for help. However, this page is no place to continue the argument. NyRoc (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi would be inappropriate, as protection is never to be used to shut down possible good-faith IP contribs in favor of logged-in editors in such scenarios. Please talk it out on talk. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism by IP´s -- Elentiras

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 04:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism by IP´s and newly founded accounts. --Yopie 03:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Velho (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. rootology (C)(T) 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Constant reverting of edits to unconstruction version of article, using un-reliable sources cited on the article regarding an album. El cangri386 Sign! or Talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. I can't read Spanish to judge the value of the source, but this appears to be a content dispute, and semi-protection is never allowed to give more authority/weight in content disputes between IPs and logged in users. Please consider discussing it with the IP or taking it up the dispute resolution chain. rootology (C)(T) 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is continuing to constantly revert my edits regarding deletion of unreliable sources that were cited on the article. Reasoning on the IP's talk page hasn't worked and no reply was placed on mine or the IP's talk page. (The sources that were cited are from a Wiki/Blog site at Wikiton.net.) El cangri386 Sign! or Talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 02:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. It was all just one IP, blocked 31 hours. rootology (C)(T) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism./Or Edit war Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 02:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. rootology (C)(T) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. -- Mentifisto 01:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection dispute, The user "Lew19" has recently made wholesale undos to remove sourced, controversial statements and revert the page to unsourced statements without discussion or explanation. Lew19's profile and history indicates he is a member of the fan club of the article topic so may have institutional bias. Further, there is a possibility the topic of this article has made an on-air or other appeal, implicit or implied, to "defend" him. Thanks.

    Declined, the user made only a single edit to the article SoWhy 15:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the original request for protection, multiple new users have registered new accounts and removed all sourced, controversial statements. Article, which formerly had 23 citations, now has 1 and reads as a fan club entry. Topic of this article, host of a radio show, may have broadcast an on-air appeal for his listeners to "patrol" his wikipedia page. These mystery, "new" users - in their edits - have said that placing unflattering statements about the topic of a wikipedia article in the topic's entry constitute "vandalism" and "trolling." I could be wrong but I don't think that's the case - but I'm not as well-versed in wikipedia as some. Anyway, not sure what the benefit of protecting it at this point is, though, as it's just back to being a fan club article, but FYI. User:NotabilityPatrol
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Agree, the latter edits are concerning, they seem to have removed large amounts of critical sections. SoWhy 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much. Is there anyway to undo the extreme vandalism done to the page? They made such good work of it that it's almost impossible to recreate with a simple undo and, as it stands, the topic of this article got his way in having an unsourced, fan club article about him. Frankly, I'm not even certain if that article should exist at all - unfortunately, the last time I nominated it for deletion, the fan club came in an deleted my nominated for deletion tags so I guess we're stuck with it forever. User talk:Notabilitypatrol

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Vandalism virtually every day by different IPs. The content makes it a bit of a target. Estimate less than 5% good edits (by IP) over last month. Ronhjones (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for one week. High level of IP vandalism. YK Timestalk 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This was happening principally 48 or so hours ago. If it picks up, please relist. rootology (C)(T) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-Protection Very heavy recent IP vandalism. LittleMountain5 23:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=272555662"