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 23: Line 23:
{{nao}} Reporting user is participating in a longterm edit-war on the article and just reverted edits by the other editor while engaging in egregious personal attacks. It appears that he wants to lock the article to his preferred version. So-called "Bad faith content additions" are well-referenced edits, using reliable sources, by the other editor. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
{{nao}} Reporting user is participating in a longterm edit-war on the article and just reverted edits by the other editor while engaging in egregious personal attacks. It appears that he wants to lock the article to his preferred version. So-called "Bad faith content additions" are well-referenced edits, using reliable sources, by the other editor. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


::User Dr.K was never a party to this dispute (so curious to see comment and article revert by him) and [[Talk:Indian_astronomy|never participated in talk]] and elected to revert my restoration of status quo ante to prolong edit war. Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version.
::User Dr.K was never a party to this dispute (so curious to see comment and article revert by him) and [[Talk:Indian_astronomy|never participated in talk]] and elected to revert my restoration of status quo ante to prolong edit war. Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher of Athenean seeking to keep Athenean's version, even though not party to dispute.


::Reporting user clearly cited the fact that other party made bad faith content additions while attempt at dispute negotiation was taking place. Please see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&action=history.|version history]]. Dr. K not prev involved, but now reverting.
::Reporting user clearly cited the fact that other party made bad faith content additions while attempt at dispute negotiation was taking place. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&action=history here]. Dr. K not prev involved, but now reverting.


::Reporting user unilaterally stopped edit war to encourage other editor to participate in negotiation and to stop more controversial content from being added while attempt at negotiation going on. Reporting User is merely restoring status quo ante before bad faith content additions during negotiation, as previously stated. [[User:Devanampriya|Devanampriya]] ([[User talk:Devanampriya|talk]]) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::Reporting user unilaterally stopped edit war to encourage other editor to participate in negotiation and to stop more controversial content from being added while attempt at negotiation going on. Reporting User is merely restoring status quo ante before bad faith content additions during negotiation, since other editor (Athenean) now wants dispute resolution and no further discussion/collaboration.

::Reporting user requests full protection ''after'' an admin revert to version: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_astronomy&action=history 06:39, 8 February 2013‎], where request for talk and good faith negotiation first requested by RU. Subsequent edits by user editor Athenean were bad faith content addition during talks--status quo ante should be restored to ensure good faith collaboration by all parties, rather than stealth content editions to inflame disputes. Thank you. [[User:Devanampriya|Devanampriya]] ([[User talk:Devanampriya|talk]]) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


:::You say {{xt|(so curious to see comment and article revert by him)}} What exactly do you find so curious? Is this a wiki or not? You come here at a highly visible forum like RFPP with "bad faith" accusations against other editors and you don't want to be discovered by other people? You say {{xt|Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version.}} Very classy. Attacking longstanding contributors in such a vile manner. I will not reciprocate. It just isn't my style. You are welcome to open an SPI against me though, if for nothing else but for the laughs. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::You say {{xt|(so curious to see comment and article revert by him)}} What exactly do you find so curious? Is this a wiki or not? You come here at a highly visible forum like RFPP with "bad faith" accusations against other editors and you don't want to be discovered by other people? You say {{xt|Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version.}} Very classy. Attacking longstanding contributors in such a vile manner. I will not reciprocate. It just isn't my style. You are welcome to open an SPI against me though, if for nothing else but for the laughs. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:03, 15 February 2013


"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: Persistent vandalism. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection: persistent, daily, unending, IP vandalism. Jojalozzo 02:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Malik Shabazz. --Webclient101talk 02:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary create protection: Repeatedly recreated – Continually re-created and deleted by user who doesn't understand the idea of context. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 02:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full-protection: Persistent POV pushing Edit War involving registered users. Content Dispute moving towards DR following breakdown of extensive talk. Bad faith content additions during attempt at talk exacerbated dispute and will worsen if continues. Freezing page would allow for mediation to take course and get users to compromise on accurate consensus. Thank you for your assistance. Devanampriya (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Reporting user is participating in a longterm edit-war on the article and just reverted edits by the other editor while engaging in egregious personal attacks. It appears that he wants to lock the article to his preferred version. So-called "Bad faith content additions" are well-referenced edits, using reliable sources, by the other editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User Dr.K was never a party to this dispute (so curious to see comment and article revert by him) and never participated in talk and elected to revert my restoration of status quo ante to prolong edit war. Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher of Athenean seeking to keep Athenean's version, even though not party to dispute.
    Reporting user clearly cited the fact that other party made bad faith content additions while attempt at dispute negotiation was taking place. Please see here. Dr. K not prev involved, but now reverting.
    Reporting user unilaterally stopped edit war to encourage other editor to participate in negotiation and to stop more controversial content from being added while attempt at negotiation going on. Reporting User is merely restoring status quo ante before bad faith content additions during negotiation, since other editor (Athenean) now wants dispute resolution and no further discussion/collaboration.
    Reporting user requests full protection after an admin revert to version: 06:39, 8 February 2013‎, where request for talk and good faith negotiation first requested by RU. Subsequent edits by user editor Athenean were bad faith content addition during talks--status quo ante should be restored to ensure good faith collaboration by all parties, rather than stealth content editions to inflame disputes. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You say (so curious to see comment and article revert by him) What exactly do you find so curious? Is this a wiki or not? You come here at a highly visible forum like RFPP with "bad faith" accusations against other editors and you don't want to be discovered by other people? You say Possible fellow nationalist pov pusher to or alias of Athenean seeking to keep his version. Very classy. Attacking longstanding contributors in such a vile manner. I will not reciprocate. It just isn't my style. You are welcome to open an SPI against me though, if for nothing else but for the laughs. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection: consistent level of contentious edits from IP editors and single-use accounts. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism due to an internet meme [1] also this can be seen if you Google "John Juanda i had trips meme". this meme vandalism has done in multiple ways by multiple IPs for almost a year please take a look at the page history for dozens of examples. thank you ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 00:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Vandalism, this article has had problems in the past as well with the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection: if not, semiprotection. Racer X continually added with out a source and long history of vandalism and other unsourced additions. Curb Chain (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full-protection: - Edit disputes concerning lead.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full-protection: - IP vandalism, edit disputes. Revert war..etc--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent removal of the {{copyvio}} template by IP accounts since mid-January. Psychonaut (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism coming from multiple ip addresses . Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – See history for large scale attack by a sockmaster. Werieth (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 21:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. The1337gamer (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Recurring IP edit warring for weeks. Repeated attempts to direct discussion to talk page have failed. --Brindt (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: vandalism. ~ Soerfm (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: from long term IP vandalism. Span (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary pending changes: BLP policy violations – A week or two until this DC Comics thing blows over, please. (I don't see what everyone's complaining about... more homoerotic subtext between Ender and Bean than between like... anybody.). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism – Nothing but IP vandalism and tests since unprotection. Secret account 15:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – It's like the whole world on this article is non-stop vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes: BLP policy violations – Due to recent political notability, getting massive BLP issues, several of which have been oversight deleted recently. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 months. Pending changes protection is usually reserved for articles that do not have a high frequency of edits, therefore semi-protection would be more appropriate. Mike V • Talk 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Arctic Kangaroo 15:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite pending changes: Persistent test edits and vandalism on this BLP. Harsh (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week by Miniapolis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism – The page is persistently vandalized. It is primarily related to the naming issue earlier. I'm requesting indefinite protection, but if an administrator thinks a temporary timeframe is better, perhaps until a month or so after the movie release, I'm fine with that.  Ryan Vesey 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week by 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tutterMouse (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism - Most of the edits are from the unregistered IPs these past few days and weeks. Some of them gives the article a good edits but some are just vandalising or playing the article. The article needs protection in order to obey the proper list of highest-grossing films and their corresponding box-office. User:Alphonsewan | User talk:Alphonsewan 8:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Miniapolis 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. BaldBoris 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – large number of IP vandalism edits in last 14 days. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Movie slated to release tomorrow, getting lots of IP edits that add unsourced info, randomly remove info, etc. A few days should help. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Future vandalism concerns. Abp9106 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't protect pre-emptively, when vandalism occurs you come right over but not now. tutterMouse (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 06:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes: BLP policy violations. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mike V • Talk 06:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent spike in nonconstructive edits by multiple new accounts. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Edit warring over undue weighty, improperly referenced stuff about land/boundary dispute. No response to request to discuss on talk page. Please revert to my last version and semi. Thanks. ukexpat (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone please review this request, the nonsense continues...--ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone, Bueller...Bueller?--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Bueller here; while the edits aren't exactly improving the article, I don't feel they require protection. You may want to have a nice cup of tea. Miniapolis 02:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection: Persistent IP vandalism. - ʈucoxn\talk 04:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mike V • Talk 06:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Needs immediate protection. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 04:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Miniapolis 00:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism from various IPs over the past six weeks. pmj (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: TFA. Excessive vandalism (even for a TFA). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Miniapolis 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users continue to make the same edit: an edit supplying his record for the 2013 season, which does not begin for 6 more months. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. May be a misunderstanding about what constitutes a football season; please discuss on article talk page. Miniapolis 00:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporarily semiprotect: Continued POV edit-warring by IP-hopping user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Airplaneman ✈ 01:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism; seems like the nth RPP in the past few months. Dan56 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection Persistent POV edits - A lot of the page seems to be edited to slander Ask.com. A lot of editors have cited articles that are questionable or opinion-based in their use of the page. Just reading the Talk page gives you an idea of the edits that people are trying to make. A lot of "Ask.com installed this on my computer within a Java installer so we need to mention in the article that the company is doing illegal things" 70.27.86.216 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Dubious unsourced additions. STATic message me! 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Miniapolis 02:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection - persistent IP spamming from what appears to be a range of addresses. Not sure whether range block or semi protection is the narrowest protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  12:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism. Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week by Anthony Bradbury. Mike V • Talk 06:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – National struggle over ethnicity. WhiteWriterspeaks 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – National struggle over ethnicity. . WhiteWriterspeaks 21:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. GedUK  12:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protection Check the edit history and you'll see on the first page of results, its mostly vandalism or the reverting of vandalism by cluebot or various users. Dream Focus 21:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. While there are some vandalism edits, they are spaced over a wide range of time, and the only recent one was within the last month and isn't enough to merit protection. Mike V • Talk 06:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary pending changes: Persistent vandalism. Webclient101talk 20:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: persistent vandalism. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I don't know why my request was denied. This article has already been protected three times and vandalism/non sense edits keep occurig. This obviously needs protecting. Astros4477 (Talk) 18:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. TBrandley (what's up) 04:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP(s) and new user(s) has been adding unsourced materials. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Lady Lotus (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Respectfully, I must say that this individual who declined my request was incorrect. From the article on the team's page: "Bourn -- penciled in as the Indians' new leadoff man and center fielder -- is scheduled to undergo a physical with the team later this week to complete the deal, which includes a vesting option worth $12 million for 2017." If he fails said physical, the deal is off. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring.--Dravidianhero (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Feel free to request unprotection/semi-protection once the dispute has been resolved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism after last protection lifted. Pinethicket (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done Page is redirect to Mentholatum; no problems seen on either page. Miniapolis 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. This page seems to be a target of someone using University of Maine public computers; was warned on one IP address before switching to another; vandalizes by posting vulgar phrases on the article. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think the frequency of vandalism justifies semi-protection at this time. Miniapolis 02:12, 15 February 2013 (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: Protected indefinitely since 2011 but very very little vandalism issue for this low-profile individual. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Miniapolis 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection: Paladino is no longer as high-profile as he was in 2010 when he was a national political candidate. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried contacting Joe Decker (the protecting admin), as mentioned above? Lectonar (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Unprotected & Pending-changes protected. This was permanently put on pending changes, and was semi-d when we stopped doing PC. Now that we're back to PC I've restored that. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't asked, but I have absolutely no objection. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection Page was protected even although there was no vandalism. This is preventing unregistered users from fixing errors right at the time of the year when there are more people looking at the article (and I guarantee you that the article is filled with small error and omissions!). Mother's Day is never protected in Mother's Day until/unless there is excessive vandalism, and as a result we get several additions and corrections every year. WP:PROTECT warns that protection is temporary and that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, this is excessive. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already unprotected.. Are you sure you requested the right article? It hasn't been protected in some time. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread one log entry. It was vandalized and now it's semi-protected. Thanks anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection This one was vandalized, but that was weeks ago! Same as above request. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you asked the protecting admin, Drmies (talk · contribs), to consider unprotecting early? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked him now. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it was weeks ago: it hasn't been vandalized because it was protected. I saw persistent vandalism going back at least to the beginning of January. If Mark thinks unprotection is OK, then go for it. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection: No reason for protection remains. Original dispute has died down. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The protection is in place to let people form a consensus on the articles talk-page. I looked, and I see no consensus having emerged. I think the dispute has died down because none of the edit warring parties is able to edit the article. Lectonar (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason the article was protected in the first place was the edit-warring over the link to the article Bloody Christmas (1963) as shown here. Immediately after it got protected. The IP has not discussed this since December 2012. There has been no interest on that issue since December 2012. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:22, 13 February 2013 (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.

    talk page also seems locked, the page includes a notice that it is outdated, this edit will help highlight the party's recent work.

    Propose:

    In recent years, the CPC has taken over from governmental agencies the effort to increase China's human capital. China was already making greater efforts in this regard than other countries, but through the "Thousand Talents" program, the CPC has sought to attract many world-class researchers, including Chinese studying and working abroad, back to work in China. The CPC increasingly recognizes that reversing China's brain drain will require improving the climate for scientific research.[1]


    This could be added to the introductory section or to the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socalcondor (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. Semi-protected until February 20, 2013. Talk page is unprotected. Miniapolis 18:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive for a rolling archive of the last 7 days of protection requests.

    1. ^ David Zweig, "Video: The Role of the Communist Party's Organization Department in China’s Reverse Migration," Presentation at the USC U.S.-China Institute, Jan. 15, 2013. http://http://www.china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=3036
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=538341010"