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
Steel (talk | contribs)
20,265 edits
Line 92: Line 92:


Being the current [[WP:COTW|Collaboration of the week]], it should not be protected.--[[User:Sean gorter|Sean gorter]]<sup>[[User talk:Sean gorter|{mind a chat?}]] [[User:Sean gorter/Esperanza|e@]] [[User:Sean gorter/Counter-Vandalism Unit|CVU]]</sup>
Being the current [[WP:COTW|Collaboration of the week]], it should not be protected.--[[User:Sean gorter|Sean gorter]]<sup>[[User talk:Sean gorter|{mind a chat?}]] [[User:Sean gorter/Esperanza|e@]] [[User:Sean gorter/Counter-Vandalism Unit|CVU]]</sup>

===={{la|User talk:Graal unixmad}}====
My talk page has not reason to be protected, if the actual content is not fiting wikipedia rules than it will be good to say what is wrong on my page. Anyway i can remove all the actual and start a new one.
Thanks.[[User:Graal unixmad|Graal unixmad]] 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


==Current requests for significant edits to a protected page==
==Current requests for significant edits to a protected page==

Revision as of 18:51, 3 August 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.

    User talk:71.115.109.28 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection. In his own words, I will continue to remove warnings. -- Steel 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm requesting that the Police state article be semi-protected to protect against a persistent anonymous user continuously adding information that is unsourced and POV. We have asked him to cite his sources and explain himself but he instead says we are "tying to hide the truth" and reinserts it. - DNewhall 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request semi-protection on this article to deal with persistent vandalism by User:Roitr/sockpuppeter. This article has been temporarily semi-protected in the past, but Roitr keeps coming back and reverting the same old edits when the protection is removed, so maybe it should be considered for longer-term semi-protection this time? Dr.frog 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request semi-protection on this article for 7 days; there have been numerous vandalisms on this article due to an episode of The Colbert Report where [Steven Colbert]] talks about Wikipedia and how he believes that Oregon is Washington's Mexico. There is already semi-protection on the Oregon and [The Colbert Report]] pages and I think there should be one on the [Washington]] page also — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMajinx (talk • contribs)

    I request semi-protection on this article for 3 days. There have been at least five instances of vandalism by IPs on the page in the last 24 hours due to this player's dismissal from a major college football team. This period will allow things to blow over and allow editors of the page to focus on other things and not reverting numerous vandals.--NMajdan•talk 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    edit war with vandal. Zeq 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request semi-protection on this article; there has been significant vandalism over the past 24 hours as inspired by this: http://www.readexpress.com/read_freeride/2006/08/post_41.php; one IP address has been blocked already Subwayguy 13:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request full protection on this article, which has been the subject of an edit war over the past week resulting in three blocks for 3RR violations[1][2][3]. Even more users have come up against 3RR without going over recently, the definition of a heated edit war for which "cool down" protection is appropriate.

    The article has been subject to removal of any and all critisism for the past six months, usually by User:ED MD, formerly User:ER MD. ER MD/ED MD has managed five other blocks in the previous three months. There is plenty of detailed discussion of this behavior on Talk:Shock and awe.

    User:Starcare tried to resolve the issue with a survey. However, ED MD responded by trying to destroy and distort the survey[4][5][6], and when he was thwarted, and three people had opposed him with nobody supporting him, he started spamming his friends' talk pages to get more responses in his favor.

    Today, mediation was requested, but the edit war continued, with a 3RR block against Scribner, who ED MD had invited to help stack the survey. Starcare suggested requesting protection, and I concur.

    Because of this behavior problem on the part of ED MD, and my expectation that he will soon revert the article again to remove the sections which were supported by all of the survey respondents before he started asking his friends to join in, I ask that this version be protected until the disputes are resolved with mediation. I am an experienced editor and I will participate in mediation as well as I can. If the article is protected at the version I have requested, then at least ED MD and his recruits will be motivated to work towards a compromise in mediation. If one of ED MD's versions are protected, I suspect they will just stonewall mediation. Publicola 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would caution against protection at this time, as I think it would be more likely to bring a halt to discussion than further it -- there is plenty of discussion taking place now and the conflict has not become sterile. The tone of the last paragraph above and this section make clear, I think, the spirit in which protection is requested. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest semi-protection as a user with a dynamic IP continues to reinsert spam links without Talk page discussion. I would impose the protection myself but I am an involved party. Full protection may also be warranted if this is considered a garden-variety edit war. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reducing to semi-protection per User:Kotepho (see here). The user who requested this page to be unprotected placed it in a wrong section. However, no one other than me had made any response to this request. The request was cleared out, and was neither fulfilled nor denied. -- ADNghiem501 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection to get rid of the IP editors who constantly try to contact the supposed real Stephen Colbert. Ryūlóng 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Featured article has been the target of vandalism. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has died down now; no protection needed. Lectonar 10:38, 3 August 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.

    Template:AOL (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

    Really no reason for full protection, in fact it's probably the only high profile vandalism target on wikipedia that isn't vandalized. Template is updated frequently, and anon AOL edits actually seem to help, I can point to a dozen times in the last month when anons have made formatting fixes, and so on, that would have other wise gone unnoticed.--AOL account 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Protected since 02:02, 31 July. Intensive discussion has taken place in the talk page. Mediation may be requested to help resolve some issues, but in the mean time, unprotect to see to what extent editors can collaborate to write the article in a balanced way. --Ezeu 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. Good luck. Rich Farmbrough 16:25 2 August 2006 (GMT).

    I noticed that this user never edited his own user talk page after being blocked, yet it was fully protected immediately after his blockage. Doesn't seem to work for me. --128.113.172.114 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Being the current Collaboration of the week, it should not be protected.--Sean gorter{mind a chat?} e@ CVU

    My talk page has not reason to be protected, if the actual content is not fiting wikipedia rules than it will be good to say what is wrong on my page. Anyway i can remove all the actual and start a new one. Thanks.Graal unixmad 18:51, 3 August 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

    Semi-protected since 29 April. TacoDeposit 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Protected for a while, hopefully everything has cooled down. Yanksox 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Significant IP vandalism; needs semi-protection. --Emufarmers(T/C) 10:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    s-protected. Lectonar 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This page still gets vandalized so many times even more than I expected. I don't know what's happening on the article Stupidity. There are many aggressive edits on the article that I've mentioned right now. I hope some admin could semi-protect the Stupidity from vandalism. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected by Tawker. -- ADNghiem501 07:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection - a series of anonymous editors have been adding numerous wild rumours and speculation to the article. McPhail 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not protected;no significant edits for some hours. Just watchlist and revert. Lectonar 10:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:222.153.112.156 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection IP user constantly vandalizes own talk page, removing warnings - Bootstoots 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not protected; no significant reveerts for some time. Lectonar 10:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection 41 edits, roughly 25% or more reverts. All over a month or so. Also I suggest other remedies as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This seems like a content dispute. Ansell 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


    Her real name was Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. In really she was the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal. This was the definitive sentence of the Sacra Romana Rota, the most important tribunal for cattolich birth. So the doubts of many wiki user that use this page for vandalism are groundless because the official document states she was daughter of the king. So she is a real pretender. Please delete in this page the link to "impostor pretender" because this affirmation is false. And please so stop with this protection and in this page write only official and objective documented facts and not doubts or personal opinion because this is a encyclopedia and not a talk page. NunoS. 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-semi-protected by Jtdirl, shortly after unprotection. -- ADNghiem501 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Primary elections are being held next Tuesday (Aug 8). The Joe Lieberman article is getting repeatedly slammed by anon vandalism. Two editors are having problems, but have entered mediation, so that's not as big of a problem, but the anon vandalism is hard to keep up with. Article needs help between now and the election on Tuesday. Sandy 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection granted -- Avi 00:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Several different IPs keep vandalising this article changing the word "game" to "con" everywhere in the article. It is becoming more and more frequent SenorKristobbal 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Stephen Colbert apparently told viewers of his show to add a nonsense phrase to this article: it has been the target of numerous vandals since. Skybright Daye 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Redactor lost caesar continually edits out controversies of Saint Paul, most of which annotated with page numbers. I suppose due to bias and user does not come to conclusive grounds in discussion.

    Protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Is consistently being vandalised by different IPs (probably spam bots) replacing the top section with a spam link. I know the frequency of vandalism normally wouldn't merit protection, but this is a stable article with no other regular edits, the anti vandal bots don't seem to pick it up and I can't stand guard over it 24 hours a day. Yomangani 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. IP editor keeps removing sourced information and references. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection granted temporarily; please work out issues on talk. -- Avi 15:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit war between two users. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. Edit war between two users. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=67487510"