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
Rockgenre (talk | contribs)
4,212 edits
→‎Current requests for protection: Requesting semi-protection for the Battle of the Little Bighorn, again.
Line 8: Line 8:
== Current requests for protection ==
== Current requests for protection ==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}

===={{la|Battle of the Little Bighorn}}====
'''Semi-protect'''. I requested that this page be semi protected several weeks ago due to consistent silly vandalism and blanking, but the request was denied. Since then the vandalism has continued. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn&diff=471793174&oldid=471793080], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn&diff=471792672&oldid=470425529], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn&diff=470411675&oldid=469518493], etc. [[User:Rockgenre|RG]] ([[User talk:Rockgenre|talk]]) 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


==== {{la|Subartu}} ====
==== {{la|Subartu}} ====

Revision as of 05:18, 17 January 2012

"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.

    Semi-protect. I requested that this page be semi protected several weeks ago due to consistent silly vandalism and blanking, but the request was denied. Since then the vandalism has continued. See: [1], [2], [3], etc. RG (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - on-going, persistent, silent edit warring / removal of references by an non-static, rotating IP who refuses to defend his action through discussion or even edit summary. Would be happy to discuss, if he has issues with the material but he cannot be forced into discussion rather than edit war. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Heavy vandalism over the past two days on this footballer because of speculation. Probably won't subside until end of the transfer window. Request maybe two weeks. JSRant Away 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by an IP or IP editors, which revert the accepted version of the article to an agenda led "India did it" version. I had to constantly revert the revisions over the last few weeks. It seems to editor hasn't got bored, so I'm requesting a little protection for it ;). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Deryck C. 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hoax spreading. Nymf hideliho! 22:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. by User:Kurt Shaped Box already. --Deryck C. 00:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from multiple IPs. Etoile ✩ (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Condolence to those affected by this recent disaster. Deryck C. 00:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from multiple IPs. ConstitutionHill (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. All the recent vandalism came from a single IP address and happened within the span of about an hour, and ceased after the final warning template was given. Blocking that particular IP is a better course of action should they continue to vandalise. Deryck C. 00:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism from multiple IPs  Marlith (Talk)  21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Superghost987 21:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Deryck C. 00:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection: IP editors adding Digg links. In fact its the same link being added by different IPs. I have warned each one of them but they still continue. Though it may not be a strong case for protection but please do consider the high volume of traffic to the page. SMS Talk 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hopefully 1 month later the edit frenzy caused by her recent death will be over. RIP Arfa Karim. Deryck C. 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested for this article and its Talk page. An unregistered editor has repeatedly edited the article in violation of consensus. He or she is also using the article's Talk page to level unfounded accusations of illegal behavior at the subject. This editor changes IP addresses frequently so semi-protection seems the appropriate recourse. ElKevbo (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Deryck C. 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really ok with an unregistered editor (a) edit warring to blatantly violate consensus and (b) using our Talk pages to libel an organization by smearing it with unfounded allegations of criminal conduct? Unfuckingbelievable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to comment with regards to the edit warfare, but I think the additions of libel to the talk page need to be addressed, possibly by wider community discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I already tried at ANI so apparently the majority of administrators are perfectly ok with this behavior. Since they also refuse to semi-protect the page or block the editor(s) in question, the only option I have is to continually blank the undesirable comments when they're restored by the troublesome editor(s). It really sucks to be doing what is unquestionably the right thing but not be supported especially when others could do the same thing much more effectively. ElKevbo (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't understand the situation as an admin who has no background knowledge about the subject, so please fill me in on whatever I've missed. As far as the article is concerned, the only major disruption I see is a dispute over some Carnegie reference. As for the talk page, don't feed the trolls by removing the entire discussion thread. Let them libel as much as they wish; any libellious speech will only bring destruction upon the speaker. Deryck C. 00:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's unethical for us to allow others to use Wikipedia as a platform to blatantly libel others. It's wrong when it's an individual and it's wrong when it's a group of people. It would be a legitimate object of discussion on a Talk page if there were any shred of evidence. But there isn't. If it were merely off-topic, silly, or light-hearted then that, too, would be different. But it isn't. It's abuse of the tools and tolerance of our community and the immense bullhorn we wield. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2012 (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: A policy page, protected for revert warring. The only warrior on one side of the discussion (and so the most active one) has not edited it or its talk page in days, and discussion is proceeding amicably. If they could try out the suggested alternatives, discussion might be more productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'm inclined to trust the protecting admin's wisdom and let the discussion proceed on the talk page without the temptation to edit the actual policy page until 20 January. --Deryck C. 00:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection: People should be able to edit this article. It is about one of the biggest companies in the world. With it being semi-protected, IPs can't edit. RubinkumarTalk 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:33, 17 January 2012 (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

    Temporary full protection: Persistent vandalism – and socking by banned user Tile join, using autoconfirmed socks. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined *sigh*. I wish I could put pending changes on, as that would solve this completely. I can't justify full protection with that volume of attacks. I'm discussing some other options and may revisit this, or any other admin have have a stab at it if they want to, of course. GedUK  20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary move protection: Page title dispute/move warring – move warring between common name and full name at birth. Protection would encourage some discussion. RafikiSykes (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC). RafikiSykes (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, The user in question has been asked not to move it, so hopefully that will be enough for now. GedUK  20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: To prevent edit warring regarding the 2012 edition of the tournament - unregistered users have several times vandalized the Winners section during 16 January 2012. Please see edit history of the page for more info. --IJK_Principle (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. WikiMan88 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Dispute between Junebea1 and Sjones23 over the description of "Powers and abilities". Two days should do it. – Allen4names 17:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please help resolve the dispute, and drop me (or another admin) a line once it's resolved so I can unprotect it. Deryck C. 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Looks like these types of films generally tend to provide a "safe haven" for IP vandalism. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If any further vandalism appears within the coming week, come back here or drop a line on my talk page to request temporary protection. At this level of vandalism and in the absence of a past protect log, fullindefinite protection seems rather premature. Deryck C. 17:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is consistently a target for drive-by vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. 46 watchers [4] should be adequate for dealing with vandalism at a rate of about one per week. Deryck C. 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary protection: Edit warring over critical material has continued for months; dispute resolution seems called for. Rostz (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 1 week to facilitate discussion. Deryck C. 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Multiple IPs continue to remove content. . -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 15:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Deryck C. 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Article is about a living person and has several contributing authors that are repeatedly making COI edits Special:Contributions/Senate30, Special:Contributions/Eag227 and Special:Contributions/NatashaValentina1, I would appreciate your help to view and take part in discussion here: Talk:Maria Sachs. Captain n00dle\Talk 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The last edit by any of those people was back in October of last year--that's not nearly recent enough to justify semi-protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Captain n00dle\Talk 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=471814403"