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
VoABot (talk | contribs)
Bots
29,709 edits
m BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. [PR: 0 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 1]
Line 12: Line 12:
###############Please only edit below this line.###############-->
###############Please only edit below this line.###############-->


===={{la|Michael Richards}}====
'''Semi-protection''' an anon-IP hopping editor has been violating [[WP:3RR]] across a number of editors on this article as well as mislabeling his edits as "rvv". {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
===={{la|Glenbard East High School}}====
===={{la|Glenbard East High School}}====
'''Semi-protection''' Keeps on getting vandalized by an anonymous IP.
'''Semi-protection''' Keeps on getting vandalized by an anonymous IP.

Revision as of 10:57, 21 December 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 an anon-IP hopping editor has been violating WP:3RR across a number of editors on this article as well as mislabeling his edits as "rvv". (→Netscott) 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Keeps on getting vandalized by an anonymous IP. Accipioleo 07:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection article has been vandalized by anonymous IPs on a daily basis.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. The article has been vandalized numerous times by various IPs (68.55.251.38, 66.174.79.235, 66.174.79.233) since it was unprotected on December 17. —ShadowHalo 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Article recently subject to a high level of vandalism, including youthful threatening behavior, from a number of unregistered users. JNW 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of vandalism. Several users (single-purpose accounts) and IPs want to blank-out criticism and contraversy sections out of the article. I feel the article should be semi-protected to stop this vandalism and generate a discussion on the talkpage. Since I am involved in the reverts, I want someone else to take a look and protect the article. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. There has been a vandalization issue by an user (User:Vlh|Vlh) who's still keep doing an edition to this article even under a lot of "block" warnings (as seen on his talk page). He's has been using his own original research (as he said in the talk page of this article), has been warned about the 3RR, and vandalizing some articles, specially this one. Xbox6 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - article is the subject of a revert war which seems to stem from anonymous users adding unsourced information of a contraversial nature. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent full protect. The rationale being that this title has been previously and will undoubtedly continue to be used to upload things we'd rather not have uploaded. Noclip 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Over the past 5 days the page has experienced anonymous vandal edits at least once or twice a day. Semi-protection would provide stability to the article and allow the greater ongoing issues to continue to be worked out on the talk page. -Amatulic 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect. Consistent revert war going on regarding the addition of uopsucks.com to the external links section, which may soon spill over to other sections, discussion ongoing in talk page. Cascadia 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Last night another user helped me with an article that is getting a lot of edits from unknown IPs. That article is Thalía. It appears that fans of that singer and another article/singer, Paulina Rubio, are taking editorial liberties with the pages without citing sources and in some cases defacing the articles with graffitti. Both singers are very popular and a general amount of competition exists between them that is perhaps causing sockpuppets to do some of the edits. The other user, [Centrx] sent me a message about protecting the pages but I am not sure if I understand fully how to do it. If I read the protection page correctly, I believe both articles should receive semi-protected status from unknown IPs. In the past week, both articles have seen a number of edits from unknown IPs. Some edits have been helpful while most have changed data without citing sources. In several cases, the IPs have done malicious edits as seen last night. Originally I had just Thalía on my Watchlist because I had noticed several edits going on that were inappropriate. Last night after seeing the "competition" edits between different IPs on those two articles leads me to believe that both pages need protection. Hopefully protection will slow down some of these edits. Both articles have already received edits this morning from an unknown IP. Ronbo76 14:17, 20 December 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.

    Please can you unprotect this article. The editors have deleted crucial information by reputable sources on the political career of this man (one editor, Duja►, helpfully described them as "a pile of rubbish", without giving any reason as to why), and these editors do not wish to engage in a constructive discussion - hence the edit war. 217.134.107.78 16:53, 20 December 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.

    The first template should be changed to {{sockpuppeteerproven}} as CheckUser has definitively proven that he's behind a ton of sockpuppets. 68.39.174.238 11:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy to hear that the User wasnt me and that he was behind many sockpuppets, and that it wasnt me, does this mean that the Admin that Listed my IP address in error, has verified that I was not the user in question and has removed my IP with the all the POST HASTE I could hope for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjbussiere (talk • contribs).

    Requesting the replacement of the current protection templates on these pages with template:vprotected to more accurately describe their status, and to inform users of the method by which to request that edits be made on these pages. John254 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done several that mentioned vandalism specifically in the protection summary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In this article there is a big libel against this pretender without any source of this libel. An user affirm she is a "impostor pretender" and so insert in the end of her page this category. So please delete this category without foundation. All the newspapers of the world affirm her as pretender of the Portuguese Throne and not as impostor. Only for a example see the most important newspaper in Spain affirm her as pretender in the day of her death [1]. At the contrary the supporters of the other pretender Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza want denigrate Maria Pia in order to favour her leader and libel Maria Pia page with this insult. User:82.60.12.130, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

    Declined the category isnt "imposter pretender" but "imposter" or "pretender" as a pretender to the throne the article appears to be correctly categorised. suggest that you post at WP:RFC for a broader range of opinions. Gnangarra 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The category is "imposter pretender" and the definition in this page is "This is the intersection of imposters (people impersonating someone else) and pretenders (people making claims to regal positions such as the queen or king of a country)". In this case this affirmation is only a libel against this pretender without impartial sources because Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, aka Hilda Toledano as writer, was the daughter of the king Charles and the definitive sentence of the Sacran RoTa Romana issued definitely the validity of her baptisimal documents where the king attribuited all the rights of an princess of Portugal to Maria Pia. She is a pretender and not a impostor pretender as miguelist supporters want deceive.So please delete this category in her page User:82.60.12.130, 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protect. This is a good article that has been the target of repeated vandalism, and inclusion unsourced opinion by newly registered users (suspect it may be same user with different accounts. Yankees76 21:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. This article seems to be a target of spambots, leaving frequent (5+ per day) single-edit IP vandalism. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Dina 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    There is on going vandalsim on the page and blanking could you please protect it!Themasterofwiki 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. IP vandalism everyday. The admins are fighting to revert the article every few hours. Siliconov 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Vandalism can be reverted by other editors. There isn't enough that the article needs protecting. J Di talk 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect The article continues to be vandalized, and you said to come back here after yesturday. Well, here I am, and the vandal has changed. Veracious Rey 15:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 15:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Edits to wikify this article keep being undone. Believe it's the same person using different IP addresses. Please see talk page for further indications of this. --Ebyabe 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, most edits to this page are simple reverts of persistent vandalism. Robotsintrouble 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Full protect Permanently banned sockpuppet using talk page as forum --Tbeatty 04:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully-protected per request. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The two main edit warriors over the page have finally weighed at at Talk:Southwestern University School of Law, with both of them saying that the last edit revision before the page protection is acceptable to them. I think it's time to unprotect the page and see if they will remain true to their words. BlankVerse 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect: Persistent IP vandalism. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 04:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect: Single IP constantly vandalizing. Noclip 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Anon user warned and currently respecting warning. Report to WP:AIV promptly if they resume vandalism.--Húsönd 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protected: Anonymous user (or users) with different IP addresses has been deleting parts of the article repeatedly, often in just minutes after it was reverted back. Numerous warnings have been given out, but this is not effective as the IP address keeps changing. Also see Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Both articles tend to be vandalized simutaniously. --Melanochromis 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected both articles.--Húsönd 04:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protected: Anonymous user (or users) with different IP addresses has been deleting parts of the article repeatedly, sometimes just minutes after it was reverted back. Numerous warnings have been given out, but this is not effective as the IP address keeps changing. Also see Dhammakaya Movement. Both articles tend to be vandalized simutaniously. --Melanochromis 03:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected both articles.--Húsönd 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Fully or Semi-Protected: Large number of users continue to constantly change and revert edits; sometimes it is often the same group of people. Also, few edits appear to be OR, that is, some edits are either speculuation or educated guesses without verification or support. BishopTutu 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: One IP user continues to harm the article, putting in things like "our olympic hero won the us title", despite posting on his talk page telling him to stop. Anakinjmt 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - 65.116.143.83. --Húsönd 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=95704270"