Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.139.161.224 (talk) at 23:23, 12 August 2010 (→‎{{la|Electronic body music}}). 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.

    Electronic body music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection dynamic ip troll socks keep on removing the futurepop section. 89.139.161.224 (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi/full-protection Dispute. TbhotchTalk C. 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection; WP:OR violations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection vandalism, Please see the "View History" section of the US Economy article and you will notice it has turned into a REVERT WAR with username "DU HAST MICH DEFRAGT" deleting a lot of factual information which had sources provided. He has also deleted references. The particular information he has been deleting clearly shows he is heavily biased with hatred/jealousy of America and this should not be allowed. He has been deleting information which is particularly positive of the US economy, which in other words he is trying to hide the facts and paint a biased, one-sided, negative image. I already requested protectionism for this article a couple days ago as I could see it was going to turn into a nasty revert war with this Du Hast Mich Defragt character being probably some very bored teenager with nothing better to do than vandalize random articles. So I am asking you to this time do the right thing and provide some protection to this article rather than sitting and waiting until the damage is already done. Prevention is the best medicine.

    Temporary semi-protection OR user block; 174.126.100.104 (talk · contribs) seems to think Digimon needs a Blood Bowl of sorts and was previously blocked not two weeks ago for gridiron-related vandalism on this article and Guilmon. Most recent non-bot edits to the article are the IP and reverts of same. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Much like the request for protection I submitted a short while ago. This article suffers very much of the same overwhelming vandalism. . GunMetal Angel 21:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Skier Dude (talk 23:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High ammount of vandalism, espicially in the utterly unnecessary childish genre warring issues. If it's too much to ask for a a long protection to be applied, can a pender be added?. GunMetal Angel 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    CRASH goes on hiatus in three days (PDT), chummer, and they're taking the dragnet with them. If you want something long-term, all you have is a semi at this moment in time. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 21:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection WP:CRYSTALBALLing and vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment meh, it seems to have stopped already. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect indefinitely due to a repeating pattern of ignoring policies and not showing any inclination to change behavior.

    July 26, 2010 Removal of policy compliant content because it does not agree with persons POV [1]
    July 24, 2010 Altering wording of my content to twist or even invert the meaning and attribute it to the original source [2]
    July 23, 2010 Altering wording of my content to twist or even invert the meaning and attribute it to the original source [3]
    August 12, 2010 Altering wording of my content to twist or even invert the meaning and attribute it to the original source [4]
    August 12, 2010 Altering wording of my content to twist or even invert the meaning and attribute it to the original source [5]

    In addition the person almost never provides any sources. More than 95 of the current 100 sources are mine. I have listed the article for a GA review and it is becoming cumbersome to go back and keep on trying to convince the person to stick to policies. Also I do not want the GA review to be affected due to an edit war. These and several other issues with the editing can be seen on the talk page in this section and beyond [6] Zuggernaut (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes - highly visible - could be a good candidate. Connormah 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Highly visible pages have been shown to be bad candidates for PC Courcelles 21:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed several good IP edits before semi was implemented which is why I put in the request. Connormah 21:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was inclined to do anything to Alison's protection, it would be to extend it. You do realise the PC trial has less than 51 hours left to run, right? Courcelles 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I was totally not aware of that - excuse my stupidy here! :) Connormah 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Currently being attacked by a dynamic IP sock. Meaghan :) ≈ 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have stopped; all IPs used so far have been blocked. Will keep an eye out. --Meaghan :) ≈ 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined been quiet for a couple of hours nowSkier Dude (talk 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Currently being attacked by a dynamic IP sock. Meaghan :) ≈ 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have stopped; all IPs used so far have been blocked. Will keep an eye out. --Meaghan :) ≈ 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, POV pushing by new accounts. WuhWuzDat 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment the user in question has already been blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest this need to be protected, as there is a lot anonymous edits about controversy linked with "World cosmetics corporations". Also, the article describes current event (there is a lot of news now about NDM-1). `a5b (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, there has been continual sneaky and blatant vandalism occuring for the past two years. This includes the random removal of information, false claims, etc. These vandalism have once again taken hold of the article please protect this page. Valoem talk 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We don't normally jump from no history of protection to an indef semi. Courcelles 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, Continual vandalism by a single user with 13+ sockpuppets, often via IPs. Indefinite semi-protection requested. Mokele (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And the user has returned within an hour of being blocked with yet another IP. Mokele (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, repeated insertion of off topic material by IP editors. WuhWuzDat 16:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Repeated additions of copyrighted text to article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, excessive vandalism. Christian msg 22:09, 12 August 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.

    Last edited 3 years ago to a poor standard. Would like to recreate the page using the advice on a previous Article For Deletion entry. Wrcmills (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2010 (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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protection, lots of unsourced transfer rumours and IP vandalism. Barret (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, continuous vandalism ..same case as history of gujarat!!. Chhora (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TFOWR 15:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, heavy vandalism by anonymous IP . RadioFan (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. IPs removing cited text, uncited speculation, and I think I saw some garden-variety vandalism, too... this article has it all ;-) TFOWR 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, So much vandalism !. Chhora (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Again, semi-protection should be sufficient. Is it the school holidays in India, too?! That always seems to bring the vandals out in force... TFOWR 14:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, constant vandalism..removal of referenced content by some random ips . Chhora(talk) 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection will keep the IPs (and also non-autoconfirmed editors) from this nonsense. I reverted a fresh instance of cited-text removal too - all part of the service here at RFPP ;-) TFOWR 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, IP editors and new users frequently adding rumours and vandalism. Barret (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be writtenSo let it be done 14:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Vitriden (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Recently semi'd for three days, let's see if a week deters them. I have to say: I was very disappointed with the quality of the vandalism - random nationality changes, with no apparent nationalist bias... vandals these days, eh? Just not the same calibre of the vandals of yesteryear. TFOWR 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection IP editor using two IP's to edit war and add his incorrect opinion about South Korea midfielder Lee Chung-Yong's name. I've warned him on both his IP's talk pages. These have been ignored. I asked the other editor reverting his edits to consider bringing this here or to AIV. This was also ignored. I'm bringing this here myself now, because it has gone on long enough. Cannonbolt2(talk) 11:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be writtenSo let it be done 14:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Vitriden (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several people there, making 3-4 unconstructive edits per minute, I can't even revert it all in such a short time. It should really be protected as soon as possible.--Vitriden (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TheHelpful One 12:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Vitriden (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This page is horror battle ground for IP editors. just check page history, weeks in the past!.Tadijaspeaks 09:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be writtenSo let it be done 14:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protection. Clear unwarranted re-creation Barts1a (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, The ip appears to be correct that the decision to turn the article into a redirect (one I personally agree was correct) was not discussed. As such, this is simply a content dispute, and not appropriate for protection. Similarly, there is no discussion I can find about whether a different article title would be more appropriate.Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is the target of the recently blocked User:Stubes99, who inserts there unreferenced information. His sockpuppetUser:Stears555 has also been blocked yesterday. Now he edits articles through dynamic IPs, and some of his favourite articles have already been protected: Hungary, Lajos_Kossuth&, Andrew II of Hungary. The article was edited through the Ip 84.2.197.54 (blocked now for Vandalism and block evasion) or 84.0.89.13 (blocked now too). As I said, he has dynamic IP so the only soultion for him to be stopped is article protections(79.117.164.112 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have no idea what's going on, or who's right and who's wrong. There are accusations that editors are socks of "blocked" editors (where the "blocked" editor doesn't actually appear to be blocked at all). Since most of the nonsense seems to be coming from IPs I've semi'd it. If anyone more clueful than me can work out what's going on, I have no objection to protection being changed or lifted. TFOWR 15:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The same as above: He attacked through the IPs 78.92.106.219 and 78.92.107.119, a form of IP that he alos usedhere (78.92.107.117), where he accepted that the is a sockpuppet master: "I'm an editor of wiki since 2005. I'd many names" (79.117.193.101 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. More strange goings-on. There's a claim that Hobartimus (talk) is a sock... I'm not convinced, but I am convinced that the article will benefit from semi-protection. TFOWR 15:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=378621629"