Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.243.2.132 (talk) at 23:19, 14 July 2010 (→{{lut|Whisky drinker}}: complaint about this guys robot and page vandelism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, There have been many BLP issues and in overview it cannot be said that from the revision history IPs/non-autoconfirmed users can be trusted to adhere to WP:BLP. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection This article has had a persistent blanker, whose sole edits have been removing sourced material, because they don't suit his POV. 16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23 and more. It now has another and more sweeping one, who also blanks what he just knows is wrong. compound diff, from today. I can keep up with one of these folk, but not two. If it's long enough, they'll get bored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. However, this is an Edit war where multiple users have different opinions on an article. The goal of a full protection is to force discussion on the talk page to establish consensus, and not to "Outlast" the other side. Besides, edit summaries such as this, this and this aren't productive, and neither is accusing someone of sock puppetry. If you have evidence, take it to WP:SPI, but don't throw a random accusation that isn't actioned. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, vandalism over last several days from several IPs. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Dan56 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Sudden and massive increase in vandalism by multiple editors within a few minutes. . Simple Bob (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I was involved in reverting some of the vandalism on this article. The vandals worked so fast, though, I kept finding myself in edit conflicts with them. Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So WTF was that all about? I haven't seen a pattern of vandalism like that before. Is it a bot, or just a bunch of kids having fun? --Simple Bob (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably just a group of kids from Glastonbury that were bored. Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Short term semi-protection - current target of multiple new account and IP vandals. Appears to be part of a coordinated attack on WP; see below. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Possibly a little conservative; I've watchlisted it and will extend protection if the attacks continue. TFOWR 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Short term semi-protection - current target of multiple new account and IP vandals. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: In fact just today, there have been over fifty vandal edits performed on the article. Awaiting administrator attention. Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 18:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for one week after. After one week the page will be automatically unprotected. Noting that there were changes to the article whilst I was checking the history so check for further vandalism. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection high-visibility template - Non-autoconfirmed users continually try to "correct" title of first movie and book. Substantial other IP vandalism as well, very little in the way of real content additions. Can only get worse as the countdown to the November release of the next in the series begins. Request per discussion on article's talk page; my take is that six months would be ideal, or as much as is possible at this time. Thanks, Jusdafax 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Article is already undergoing a pending changes trial, but this does not appear to be working. Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enough is enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 14 July 2010 (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.

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

    Unprotection, Unable to give notification to user. Fages (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    {{RFPP|d}}. There's a note on the page asking people to contact the operator of the account, HJ Mitchell, on his talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent ongoing or past disruption to the page, I don't see how full protection is warranted here. Newer users might not read the note or fully understand it (case in point: this request). Perhaps the page should simply be redirected? –xenotalk 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind either way, xeno. I'll leave a note about this discussion for HJ. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I left him a note as well. Not sure if he even knows that it was protected. –xenotalk 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know it was protected and I'm not sure why it needs to be, but posting there is unlikely to achieve much- I only use the account for vandal reversion with Igloo at the minute. I've no objection to it being unprotected if you guys think it's best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were in the throes of an igloo-rv-fest then a message there might get your attention faster =) But the real reason is as I mentioned above, newer users having been reverted by your alternate account might not read or understand the note and won't be able to post. Unprotected –xenotalk 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand it, either. I just know that I am fucking pissed at this guys robot running around messing peoples' work up! I spent three hours on an article and this damn robot wreaked it - all in the moment it took me to get up and get me a glass of water from my kitchen!!

    When I looked on this guys talk page & history I found HUNDREDS of revisions being done over a period of seconds. Sounds like vandelism to me! How can a robot know good edits from bad edits? This whisky drinker guy seems to purposefully set up a system of automatic page vandelism and then posts crap on his page about if you leave a note for him he probably won't get to it cuz he's so damn busy or whatever. Like he's the pope or something.24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus


    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

    semi-protection high-visibility template, Non-autoconfirmed users keep reverting edits which add content which is not appropriately sourced for BLPs. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, /b/ is doing their usual thing. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi protection various IPs have been reposting promotional copyright materials into article. Active Banana (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, persistent deletions by various (same?) IPs. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. I started "cleaning" the article more than three months ago. All edits since then (and most edits before) have been unsourced/nonsense/vandalism (and revertions). It's a hopeless job trying to follow wp:BLP, and I don't really understand why I bother to warn the IPs, as they seem to be dynamic. Dugnad (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection, Constant unsourced edits by ips. ETLamborghini (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My mistake, Temporary semi protection, not full.--ETLamborghini (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection, The non-reliable source Private Eye is being used to reference info in a controversy section for this BLP. I found out about it via an email to the foundation. It has been put back by different autoconfirmed users despite HTML comments in the article linking to RS and BLP. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-14t13:49z 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, constant ip chart position vandalism and certification inflation and insertion of unsourced fluff. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary create-protection, Repeatedly created vanity page on non-notable writer. Empty Buffer (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protect Constant vandalism by one user who has dynamic IP. After talking with him we saw only his revisionist/nostalgic/nationalistic attitude and no sign of stopping. Adrian (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection dispute. Stickee (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Are you sure that's the right page? Only two edits, the second was by you and requested deletion. I have deleted it. No sign of any dispute, not even garden-variety edit warring to remove speedy tags... TFOWR 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, wrong twinkle button. Stickee (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done No worries, I have a love/hate relationship with Twinkle, too ;-) TFOWR 10:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term pending changes protection. Regular sockpuppeting. There has been a long-term problem with this article, which has been affected by sockpuppets - some of them operated by the subject of the article (User:ColScott) or at his instigation - seeking to blank, vandalise or remove content without discussion (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott and archives). Semi-protection has not worked because the sockpuppets operate as sleeper accounts, some registered as long ago as two years previously, making just enough edits to get them past the semi-protection threshold. Now that we have pending changes protection I suggest trying it on this article to see if it stops the problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: As it was only protected a few hours ago, it's best to check with the protecting admin SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it has been semi-protected for the entire period from 20 October 2008 to today, with the exception of a few hours of full protection on 13 July 2010. So it has not only just been protected - it has been semi-protected for most of its existence. However, this has failed to stop the sockpuppetry, hence this request. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending-changes protected I'm happy to give it a try. I've left semi protection on as well, but i'll have to keep an eye on it to see whether that actually works. GedUK  10:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent IP vandalism. Someone keeps vandalizing the image caption apparently in an attempt to stigmatize this neighbourhood. The edits are nonsense and the person makes no attempt to discuss the issue, despite notes left on the user page and edits being reverted many times. The individual or individuals always use a different IP. The inappropriate edits are made typically on a monthly basis. A.Roz (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=373530013"