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
Benjiboi (talk | contribs)
50,496 edits
Line 47: Line 47:
==Current requests for unprotection==
==Current requests for unprotection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/URheading}}

===={{la|User talk: Benjiboi}}====
I've been targeted by a vandal but I also get friendly anons so I'd like to life protection and see how it goes. [[User talk:Benjiboi|Benjiboi]] 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


===={{la|Kevin Federline}}====
===={{la|Kevin Federline}}====

Revision as of 17:14, 15 November 2007


"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.

    Request indefinite page semi-protection. Continuous silly vandalism - 8 today.--John of Paris 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, last edited two months ago. east.718 at 17:03, 11/15/2007

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Article has a long-term history of IP vandalism, request long-term semi-protection. Every time it's unprotected, the vandals come back in force, with vandalism often remaining up for extended periods..—Krellis (Talk) 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected until school gets out. east.718 at 16:47, 11/15/2007

    This diff clearly shows 30+ incidents of IP vandalism in the past 3 days or so. Requesting semi-protection for one week, to let the IP vandals find a different target. K. Scott Bailey 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 16:45, 11/15/2007

    This page is scheduled to sppear on the front page in two days. Given its extensive vandalized history, I'd like to request that it be semi-protected for five days, so we don't have to spend all day on the 17th (and the days following) reverting edits which include the phrase "ball sack". – Scartol · Talk 14:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, see WP:NOPRO. east.718 at 16:44, 11/15/2007

    Semi-protection An IP vandal has been repeatedly adding harassing edits to this article. The vandal uses dynamic IPs, so blocking him is impossible. Note that vandalism has been occuring over a length of time, and will most likely continue without semi-protection. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 16:44, 11/15/2007

    User talk:MaryPoppins878 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary full protection User talk of banned user, Banned user User:MaryPoppins878, a sockpuppet of User:Grant Chuggle, having got nowhere playing all innocent over sockpuppetry has taken to filling his/her user talk page with copies of the articles that he/she has been edit warring over reent months.Mayalld 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lara❤Liebe 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Repeated vandalism from accounts created specifically for that purpose and threats against me and my family (not sure why). Could we also get this IP address(User:210.0.200.163) and all his sockpuppets (User:Thetelltaleheartoperative and User:Midnightdrearythesecond) blocked? Please? All this does is perpetuate the uselessness of template warnings for anonymous users. --Midnightdreary 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. east.718 at 16:50, 11/15/2007

    Semi-protection. Repeated vandalism by anonymous users. Mainly derogatory attacks on sexuality & nationality. Thaf 13:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2007 (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.

    I've been targeted by a vandal but I also get friendly anons so I'd like to life protection and see how it goes. Benjiboi 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to unprotect this article due to the lack of activity (seven edits this month). So I was looking to see who protected it and when. It has been protected since mid-June. The protecting admin (Clown) gave the reason as "libel concerns, ongoing." I see no discussions about possible libel concerns on the talk page. But, I wanted to get the opinions of some of the admins that monitor protections more than I before taking any further action. If this isn't the place, I can take it to WP:AN.↔NMajdan•talk 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you ask CSCWEM about this? east.718 at 16:43, 11/15/2007

    Transferred to Commons; would like a note using {{ncd}}. Perhaps delete, as well. Octane [improve me] 15.11.07 1557 (UTC)

    Erledigt east.718 at 16:42, 11/15/2007

    User protected page before he was desysopped. If he comes back, he won't be able to edit the page, and nobody else can leave messages on the page in the meantime. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Alkivar claims that he will not be back to edit, I'm personally inclined to leave it as is. He appears to want to invoke his right to disappear, and I think that's reasonable despite the puerile retaliatory contempt with which he did so.
    I'm ignoring that he wishes to briefly comment on the Arbcom elections - if his comments there are problematic, we can cross the bridge then. I'm also not closing this request, but I think that respect, on our part, of his decision, however immature it may have been, is the high road. Nihiltres{t.l} 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from...my point is that Alkivar uploaded a lot of images and created a lot of articles. If those items come up for deletion, or have other problems, there needs to be a place taggers can make a notification. I understand he has stated that he's retired but I assume there a quite a few people, not all of them hostile to him, still watching his user/talk pages that can deal with the issues on his behalf as they arise. I agree with protection of his userpage but the talk page should be open barring some problem like trolling, etc. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined east.718 at 16:40, 11/15/2007

    Protected in violation of WP:PROT. No vandalism was in evidence whatsoever, so nothing has been remedied by taking WP:OWNish action to exclude anon editors.80.93.211.162 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - Please discuss this matter with User:DrKiernan as it has been very recently protected. Page was protected due to a banned editor persistently returning to make inappropriate comments - Alison ❤ 08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite ignorant. If any 'inappropriate comments' can be alleged then those would be from the article's TALK page, not the article itself which has been carefully and appropriately sourced at all stages. The talk page is completely unprotected and wide open for any type of comment, appropriate of otherwise, so protection of the acticle has precisely nothing to do with what you have alleged. It has everything to do with ignoring the requirement of WP:PROT that there must have been some occurrence of WP:VANDALISM to justify locking out other contributors. Note also the exclusion of reliably sourced article content, upon contrived and flimsy justification, by the locking editor to the detriment of its overall quality: [1], and which should be reversed. So inform yourself again and reconsider.80.93.211.162 09:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - please do not edit my decline statement. It's misleading to other admins and makes it look like I have not made a decision here - Alison ❤ 10:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimally editing the statement is necessary to prevent the bot clearing this away before a decision can be made by anyone who cares to do so on by reviewing on an informed basis. Your 'decision' is based on the patent falsehood that locking action had anything to do with so-called 'inappropriate[ness]' in comment. Anyone can make inappropriate comment on any wikipedia article talk page, including the subject one, hence that's a risible and rubbish justification and something that was nowhere cited by the locker anyway. Read WP:PROT to understand that temporary semi-protection is activated by the need to prevent vandalism in article-space: a thing noticeable in its absence.80.93.211.162 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And again. Keywords here from DrKiernan: banned editor. You've already been blocked 24 hours by the aforementioned for being a sock of a banned editor, now this wikilawyering nonsense. Banned editors do not have editing rights, whatever about disrupting WP:RPP. Declined for the third time and block re-instated - Alison ❤ 15:00, 15 November 2007 (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.

    This column was protected and there has been no activity in over a month.

    Erledigt --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please replace the featured picture tag with {{FormerFeaturedPicture|delist/Cartoon Villain}} as its featured status was revoked per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Cartoon Villain. MER-C 05:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erledigt east.718 at 06:11, 11/6/2007

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection. Repeated addition of uncited claims and vandalism. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. east.718 at 09:39, 11/15/2007

    semi-protect. Repeated attempts by an anonymous user from a specific IP range to insert unsourced material into the article. It may not be frequent, but the anonymous user changes a lot of content, continually refusing to source the material being added. I have left a few comments in one of the Talk pages to no avail. JudgeSpear 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. east.718 at 09:40, 11/15/2007
    How much disruption would justify protection for an relatively obscure article anyway? I'd appreciate a non-automated response. JudgeSpear 09:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly more than two strings of edits in eight days. Just watchlist and revert as necessary. east.718 at 09:52, 11/15/2007

    Semi-protection. Repeated attempts by quite a number of IP addresses to insert unsourced POV criticism into the article without any attempt at discussion or response to requests for discussion. —Dark•Shikari[T] 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection, due to persistent, IP based revert warring against guidelines in a clear-cut case (see previous discussion). - Cyrus XIII 08:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - also, largely a content/style dispute. Please try discussing the matter with the anon editor? I notice their talk page is redlinked - Alison ❤ 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Tictv 07:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - just one anon editor making somewhat good-faith edits - Alison ❤ 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:It's Britney, bitch (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite full protection User talk of banned user, Actually, just an indef blocked user. see the edit history for the ongoing unnecessary comments I've removed. Blocked user is only causing disruption..Rjd0060 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected -- Flyguy649 talk 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, It is an article about a book frequently read at school, vandalisim is expected. .Marlith T/C 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism.SashaCall 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Requesting for one week. High level of IP vandalism has coincided with the game's release in North American..jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 10 days - just enough time to build up an armada against vandalism. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested to alleviate edit warring. --ElKevbo 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Protection isn't for one or two users consistently vandalizing. Revert and warn. Lara❤Liebe 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not terribly effective when the anonymous user(s) continue to switch to new IPs and are clearly aware of their vandalism (i.e. these are not test edits or mistakes). They appear to have taken a break so we'll see if this continues later. --ElKevbo 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. User:Tajik who is banned by the arbitration committee continues editing/reverting under anonymous ips such as 82.83.144.4, 82.83.141.35, 82.83.141.16, ... See also Dmcdevit's comment on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. Regards. E104421 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'm not seeing vandalism. Seems like a content dispute to me. Checkuser cases appear to be overall inconclusive. Lara❤Liebe 02:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, As soon as the previous protection is released, we are hit harder by vandals, we need a longer period of protection. .Marlith T/C 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lara❤Liebe 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Repeated defamation from different IP's over the last few days.[2] [3] etc. May also require oversight? if all details need to be removed from public view - not sure of WP policy. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If edits need to be removes, go see WP:OVERSIGHT. As for the article, I've Semi-protected it for two months over WP:BLP concerns. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - IP vandalism.   jj137 (Talk) 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Húsönd 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=171696843"