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
Larsinio (talk | contribs)
6,146 edits
Larsinio (talk | contribs)
6,146 edits
Line 14: Line 14:


===={{la|Beer Pong}}====
===={{la|Beer Pong}}====
'''Semi-protection''' anonymous users frequently add alot of cruft (such as their house rules), shoutouts to individual people, and just random crap. It has been going on for a long while, as since it is associated with [[drinking culutre]] it is a frequent target. --'''<font color="LimeGreen">[[User:larsinio|larsinio]]</font>''' [[User talk:larsinio|(<font color="orange">poke</font>)]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/larsinio|(<font color="DodgerBlue">prod</font>)]]</sup> 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Semi-protection''' anonymous users frequently add alot of cruft (such as their house rules), shoutouts to individual people, and just random crap. It has been going on for a long while, as since it is associated with [[drinking cultyre]] it is a frequent target. Furthermore the article is listed as a good article and myself and several others are trying to improve it to FA; which will be more difficult without semi-protection --'''<font color="LimeGreen">[[User:larsinio|larsinio]]</font>''' [[User talk:larsinio|(<font color="orange">poke</font>)]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/larsinio|(<font color="DodgerBlue">prod</font>)]]</sup> 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


===={{La|Sprint Nextel}}====
===={{La|Sprint Nextel}}====

Revision as of 14:06, 12 July 2006



"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-protection anonymous users frequently add alot of cruft (such as their house rules), shoutouts to individual people, and just random crap. It has been going on for a long while, as since it is associated with drinking cultyre it is a frequent target. Furthermore the article is listed as a good article and myself and several others are trying to improve it to FA; which will be more difficult without semi-protection --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection requested due to a revert war involving several users and an indef blocked user evading blocks through sockpuppets. Cowman109Talk 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to ongoing sabotage and vandalism by anonymous editors, I request that this article be semi-protected.Editorius 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is currently protected.--Andeh 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection anonymous user has reverted and has threatened to keep reverting page back to his POVish version including deletion of multiple citation requests and 19 actual citations ad infenitum. Also states he will find other IPs if his is blocked. Quote from anon user: "I will delete this the first thing every morning for the rest of my life, if need be". and "If you block this IP, I will find others." Also a lot of drive by trash and few registered users: makes it hard for the editors to keep up with the changes. --Cylon 13:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Article has been under spam attack by anon IPs, including proxies, for nearly a month. No sign of stopping. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Here are anon IPs that have vandalised most reccently:

    And Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · logs) has reverted the vandalism by the anons mentioned. Myrtone

    Comment it appears the most of the websites being spammed are belgium ones with .be domains, don't know if that means anything.--Andeh 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection, users keep making major edits without any kind of discussion and is causing WP:AfC to become messy and confusing.--Andeh 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Jeff_Relf (talk · contribs) has been continually adding his own original research to the "Scientific Philosophy" section of the article - discussions on the article and his edits are on the Discuss page. The user will not budge from his own incorrect view of modern physics and has now moved onto editing the Classical Physics page to try and further his own agenda. Desdinova 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

    I've blocked the user per 3RR.Voice-of-All 09:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is now trying to introduce the changes he was originally chastised for (pseudorandomness, a position he has no supporting evidence for), in a new section of the same article.

    He was asked to put his changes first on the talk page. Rather then that, he did both (i.e. added them to the Talk page at the same time he added it to Albert_Einstein page).

    Desdinova 13:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    I've just noticed he has attempted to redo his edits to Classical Physics as well.

    Desdinova 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

    Semi protection: Anonymous user has been waging a slow revert war. Several attempts[1][2][3][4] to get him to participate in a discussion on Talk:Jerome Armstrong have been met with stony silence. Same person has also twice vandalised user pages of people he disagrees with[5][6], indicating that he has no interest in consensus-building. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 20:23, July 8, 2006

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 08:54, 9 July 2006 (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.

    It's obvious that listing those in charge and involved at a radio station is standard practice on Wikipedia articles. This page should be unprotected and should remain in its current form Lasallefan 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like the unprotection of my userpage as a sign of trust. Also, it appears the user whom was determined to vandalised the page has ceased such actions. Yanksox 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Voice-of-All 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the edit war has settled down. One participant appears to have left after an RFC. Others seem ready to move forward. William Pietri 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant 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.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    I would like the page unprotected. It was placed on protection because of "edit wars", which was not accurate. What was occuring was repeated vandalism being reverted, in which the party has been warned and admitted to doing it jest. Bignole 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Voice-of-All 02:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection has been receiving an incredibly high number of anon edits recently. The vandalism is usually subtle - introducing information that is wrong or putting in defamatory or POVish statements, this only makes it harder to revert.--Konstable 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection The article was previously semi-protected to stop anon users from vandalising the article, in particular the "Confirmed roster" section. The vandalism shortly returned after unprotection. --Oakster (Talk) 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks anyway. --Oakster (Talk) 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Edit war with IP user over use of sources from an anti-Masters personal site. ---Bennie Noakes 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection The anonymous edits are just getting ridiculous- 48 different versions just from today (10 July 2006) Minglex 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 17:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection There is a dispute on where Japanese Kanji, Romaji characters are to appear (in a single line or not). Page had been protected twice so far, and should stay protected until a concensus is reached. --Cat out 11:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. — FireFox 14:03, 10 July '06
    A consensus was already reached on that article, the dispute is over a breaking of that consensus. Protect it if you think that's best, but I just thought I would point out that this isn't a problem of no-consensus. -- Ned Scott 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A straw poll over which template to use was conducted two weeks ago. It concluded to use one of the WP:LOE templates by a vote of 8 to 2, which is generally a wide enough margin to be called a consensus. I've contacted one of the two parties about his vote, and this was his response. However, Cool Cat, the other voter in the minority has made several statements on Talk:List of Air episodes to the affect that he will not recognize the outcome of the straw poll and even attempted to declared the poll to be "invalid". --TheFarix (Talk) 14:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection The page has been undergoing some vandalism for about one or two weeks; the vandalism isn't very much but it's becoming a nuisance to the editors of the page. It doesn't seem major enough to be fully protected, or to ban the anons, so I'm just putting it here. I don't know the ban request page, either.. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've watclisted this one.Voice-of-All 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Rail terminilogy/Archive 1 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full protection: {{talkarchive}} has been added, so as an archive of past discussions, the contents of the page may no longer be edited. Myrtone 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless there is a specific reason, we don't protect archives. Just revert when they get edited. --Conti|✉ 17:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Myrtone 13:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection:Tried to have this semi-protected earlier but it was denied, activity has continued unabated with increased incivility despite the blocking of one of the addresses. Anon with roving IP address is continually reverting a number of users and admins and adding unencyclopedic content now saying "I will make it a point of changing the article to what I believe is the truth, 1000 times if I have to. You offer no alternatives." It's a living biography by the way.--Zleitzen 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've watchlisted this one.Voice-of-All 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection should be sufficient. ALthough heated at times, much of the debate happens on talk, and there seems to be only one named user who continuously tries to ignore the consensus. The rest are IP edits. -- Avi 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by PinchasC. Voice-of-All 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: The Nicknames section is constantly being vandalized by anonymous users. --Lc 04 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: The vandalism rate on the French goalkeeper's article is starting to pick up. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Page was protected some time ago because of an edit war. Editors agree there are no problems now.--Nectar 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The issues that started the revert war have not yet been resolved. Voice-of-All 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on the talk page isn't grounds for keeping an article protected. Neither of the 2 editors who engaged in that edit war are active now on the talk page or the draft of the article we set up so that we don't have to wait for the article to be unprotected. This is interfering with level-headed editors trying to do their job. --Nectar 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its still too soon to assume that they just left, and you can still make protected edit requests.Voice-of-All 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting silly. Since you're not an editor of the article, listen to those who are: these editors aren't children that need you to hold their hand in order to edit articles. If you want to wait until every debate is resolved on the talk page you're going to have to wait months. What is important is that there are no heated debates any more on either the talk page or the draft that has been set up. This policy is not intended to unilaterally go against the wishes of reasonable editors.--Nectar 22:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been protected for 3 weeks now.--Nectar 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest moving it to partial protection to allow Nectar and other non-anon editors to move forward. Our problem was mostly with anonymous editors from canada (possibly Mr. Rushton himself) doing blanket reverts rather than working to find compromise. --JereKrischel 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to second the partial unprotection request made by JereKrischel. I think it's a good start, and after three weeks, I'd say tempers have cooled off. --Ramdrake 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the anger over Elizondo giving Rooney the red card has died down and vandalism would be considerably lower than it was before. Englishrose 22:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection: User:Roitr/sockpuppeter is banging on this one again. Dr.frog 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've watchlisted this one.Voice-of-All 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Very frequent vandalism and reverts (once per minute!). Materazzi was footballer headbutted by Zidane (see below). -- MightyWarrior 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the anger over Rooney's red card has died down and vandalism would be considerably lower than it was before. Yanksox 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection Currently semi-protected but is still subject to vandlism/revert conflict. Really needs full protection until tempers settle down (for non football fans Zidane was sent off in the World Cup final). --Daduzi talk 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not seeing a huge number of reversions, or at least, edits labelled as such. We usually like to let folks edit the hell out of newsworthy articles. --Golbez 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much the entire first page of the history is vandalism and reversions. I was about to suggest this article here, but realized there was already a request. Is there anyway you'd reconsider? tmopkisn tlka

    Semi-protection: Some idiots keep vandalizing the article to make such claims as "The villain wins!", or "Peach desides (sic) to leave Mario [tied up]", or "Mario lands with a fractured arm," neither of which actually happen in the comic.--Nintendo Maximus 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the future, do NOT add the sprotected template to articles. It accomplishes nothing. Nor does edit warring over it. That said, I'm doing it. --Golbez 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection: It is fully protected at the moment and i am/others are unable to edit due to this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Voice-of-All 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if someone else edits it, then i am not editing it am i and thus it wont be in my Contribs? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=63411742"