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
Line 5: Line 5:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
===={{la|Mary Wollstonecraft}}====

'''Semiprotection''' Featured article on main page. Vandalism has been steady, but IP vandalism is starting to get crazy/ unmanageable. [[User:Danski14|Danski14]] 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
===={{la|Feminism}}====
===={{la|Feminism}}====
'''Semiprotection'''. Concerted and blatant vandalism from multiple IPs since early February--[[User:Cailil|Cailil]] 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Semiprotection'''. Concerted and blatant vandalism from multiple IPs since early February--[[User:Cailil|Cailil]] 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:37, 20 February 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 protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Semiprotection Featured article on main page. Vandalism has been steady, but IP vandalism is starting to get crazy/ unmanageable. Danski14 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. Concerted and blatant vandalism from multiple IPs since early February--Cailil 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request short term semi-protection of about two weeks. Basicly there seems to be a bit of an edit war going on about the number of cruiserweight championships he has won. So protecting the page for a fortnight might help. Then hopefully it will die down after that. Govvy 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. Continued vandalism from multiple IPs.Hondasaregood 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Llama man 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protect. Persistent vandalism by User:64.7.17.18. Stephan Schulz 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Vandalism from only one user, who was not warned. –Llama man 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I'll warn him, but he has ignored other opinions and edit summaries for some time. --Stephan Schulz 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full Protection requested. Frequent occurence of vandalism from user:Classicjupiter2/Keith Wigdor and his sockpuppets. Confirmation of sockpuppetry can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2. Attempts to block Classicjupiter2's (& sockpuppets') vandalism only results in his creation of new user accounts with different IPs. TextureSavant 15:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Recently closed WP:DRV and endorsed deletion. Salted, but should be semiprotected to discourage recreation by new users. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 13:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - as required by WP:SALT. --Robdurbar 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Individual user on multiple IP addresses vandalizing page. Tried to talk to vandal's brother to no avail (It's a small town.) Jon Thompson 13:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Robdurbar 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting temporary full protection of the following pages from disruptive editing by moderation-resistant user Bridge & Tunnel:

    Thank you. Bi 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - Both Bi and Bridge & Tunnel. --Robdurbar 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism by Orkadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is blocked for being an abusive sockpuppet of Mallimak (talk · contribs) (CheckUser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak). See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mallimak. Here is a recent admission by the IP abuser that they are actually Orkadian: [1]. Mais oui! 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I think the better way to solve the problems on that page would be to list for deletion. --Robdurbar 14:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, recent rash of IP vandalism — MrDolomite • Talk 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect - article was up to par and agreed upon with the actual living person (who is a wiki editor and was contacted for approval) and suddenly annonymous people make claims and edits to "defend his honor". Jaakobou 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that prior to deciding whether to protect or not, one observe the article, the short talk page and the edits in question and judge whether the case is as Jaakobou describes. --70.48.242.49 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    Protected for nearly a week. User Aivazovsky has vandalized the page by removing its entire content with close to 25 references to several publications. The user further did not provide any explanation on Talk:March_Days neither before nor after the block. Please, investigate and unblock the page. Thanks. Atabek 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for nearly a month. Appears stable. SilkTork 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    artical has been protected no one here can edit it...

    Declined, as the article has only been protected for about ten days. –Llama man 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputes have been settled. Ferrett3 10:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been semi protected since December 2006. PeaceNT 12:07, 20 February 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.

    See [[Template talk:Lts}}

    • Basically there's a double use of another template, which should only appear in the Doc page. I've explained what to do on the talk. If you're not a template guru, the simplest thing would be to copy and paste the Meta version in. Thanks // FrankB 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:The weather in London

    For the climate of London, see Climate of London.

    --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Robdurbar 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already unprotected., as far as I can tell. Daniel.Bryant 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Istanbul is in a terrible shape and I have the resources and skills to improve it. Regards. DragutBarbarossa 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose your changes at the article's talk page, and obtain consensus with other editors before doing {{editprotected}}. Nishkid64 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection Request due to regular edits by User:Judith Lissauer Cromwell who vandalizes the page, removing categories, wiki-style and advertising a book by Judith Lissauer Cromwell. ISasha 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - if it's a single user, take it to ANI and see if he/she will be blocked. Daniel.Bryant 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Requesting on behalf of anonymous user; recent vandalism from anonymous users – Qxz 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Daniel.Bryant 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection request due to regular edits inserting uncited information to this page. Since the first of the month, regular uncited edits by anon edits have been introduced into this page. Rob110178 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected, persistant and periodic IP attack. Daniel.Bryant 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection request due to non-stop reverts without explanation. This disambiguation page is being repeatedly reverted to a biased article entry from IP users. See the talk page for discussions. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected riana_dzasta 10:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested due to heavy IP vandalism.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected, there's been a couple of IP's in the last 10 hour alone. 74.192.176.253 especially could do with some lay-off time if he/she continues attacking other articles similarily. Daniel.Bryant 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The fact that when I tried to access the article I was redirected to autocunnilingus just made it clear that SP was in order.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect due to heavy vandalism. And Ronald is such a nice guy, too. RJASE1 Talk 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, Continued vandalism from multiple IPs. Is vandalised on almost a daily basis at the moment. Orpheus82 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Robdurbar 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection: Deleting sourced information only a few moments after it was added [2] twice, even after a request to take his concers to the talk page. Other portions of text have been removed and the intro has been put in a strange new section. futurebird 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Okay, I think things are getting less... dangerous... futurebird 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Given the request has been removed. There's a lot of editing on the page but I don't think its necessary reversions etc. --Robdurbar 09:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, heavy vandalism for some strange reason. RJASE1 Talk 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Robdurbar 09:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, it's been long enough. Lovelight 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected --Robdurbar 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Persistent vandalism by IPs PeaceNT 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism -- Heligoland 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. The article Carlos Mencia has been fully protected, but it looks like some editors have brought the dispute over here, including some fairly serious WP:BLP issues. Semi-protection should at least cut it down. RJASE1 Talk 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected · j e r s y k o talk · 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Several anons/new users have made constructive suggestions on the talk, I imagine the vandalism and spamming wave will have passed along with the holiday itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect - big vandalism spike by anons and new users. RJASE1 Talk 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect This is a biography that recently an unknown contributor is repeatedly posting the same defamatory, and completely unsubstantiated, information. This information has been removed, and a warning issued to no avail. The contributor has used several IP addresses, but the postings are the same every time, and undoubtedly is from the same individual Kingfisher2 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=109624497"