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
Splash (talk | contribs)
33,425 edits
→{{article|Rolf Harris}}: blocks better than protects
Splash (talk | contribs)
33,425 edits
Line 29: Line 29:
Needs protection due to continuous edits by users such as [[User:84.12.255.21|84.12.255.21]] to change names to "'''Rofl Harris'''" thus reducing the credibility of the article to zero.
Needs protection due to continuous edits by users such as [[User:84.12.255.21|84.12.255.21]] to change names to "'''Rofl Harris'''" thus reducing the credibility of the article to zero.
:This happens once or twice a day. That particular IP is being problematic, and so I have blocked it for 48 hours. Blocks are better than protection since there is less (or no) collateral damage with blocks. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 17:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:This happens once or twice a day. That particular IP is being problematic, and so I have blocked it for 48 hours. Blocks are better than protection since there is less (or no) collateral damage with blocks. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 17:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
::NB. There are other, superficially similar, IPs also being childish. They are from different service providers however, so a range block won't work. Only the one listed above seems to be repeatedly problematic. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


==={{article|Nostradamus}}===
==={{article|Nostradamus}}===

Revision as of 17:56, 1 January 2006

Shortcut

This page is for requesting that a page or image be full protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Wikipedia:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.

Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.

Generally, full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.

This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately.

Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.

Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request, leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good, as well.

Current requests for protection

Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be protected.

Needs protection due to continuous edits by users such as 84.12.255.21 to change names to "Rofl Harris" thus reducing the credibility of the article to zero.

This happens once or twice a day. That particular IP is being problematic, and so I have blocked it for 48 hours. Blocks are better than protection since there is less (or no) collateral damage with blocks. -Splashtalk 17:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NB. There are other, superficially similar, IPs also being childish. They are from different service providers however, so a range block won't work. Only the one listed above seems to be repeatedly problematic. -Splashtalk 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow revert war between User:Thedore7 and User:PL (who claims Theodore7 is persistently adding copyvio material into the article...I'm "involved" inasmuch as I keep having to go back and disambiguate stuff everytime PL reverts to his version). Tomertalk 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will protect. It'll be PL's version because that's the version it's in right now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs protection because it will become another Bogdanov Affair. --Glenzierfoot 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Glenzierfoot is a borderline vandal who keeps adding the protected template to pages with no justification. Including this one. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs protection because it will become another Bogdanov Affair. --Glenzierfoot 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected. Not enough of anything for protection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious vandal, school ip (I attend the school), students blanking every 12 hours. Request Semi-Protection Sceptre (Talk) 12:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a day. I'll hold off for now. Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is the school holidays at the moment.... Robdurbar 14:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been vandalized for the last couple of days now. Requesting page protection.

Lotta edits, but nobody's tried talking on the talk page! Why don't you try that? I made things a bit prettier; if things keep up with the reversions and other nonsense, it may need protection. Not quite yet, though. —BorgHunter (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wowzers. Protected. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be unprotected. BorgHunter locked it down without carefully reverting the vandalism. -- Mikeblas 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain further and link to the version you think is correct? An honest mistake in reversion doesn't mean it needs to be unprotected. Dmcdevit·t 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be glad to revert to a previous version if there's vandalism I missed. I think I got most of the external link–changing. Just give me an oldid and I'll take a look. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the revision around "05:46, December 31, 2005 MarkGallagher" looks like a decent version. As it stands, the last paragrap (starting with "Prior to being fired from MCA...") includes "audiophool", the name of the vandal -- and was added by him earlier in the evening. The "Juice Newton" stuff is drivel. I think we should have a version without that paragraph, -- Mikeblas 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry I didn't catch it all in the first place. —BorgHunter (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; thanks for helping. Thing is, now it's locked and there's no locked template so that's confusing. (How do you guys decide when to unlock?) -- Mikeblas 21:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like BorgHunter acidentally reverted out the template as well. I put it back in. Articles protected for vandalism will be unprotected in a short time, likely in a matter of days (without some unusual circumstance). If not, you can always request unprotection below. Dmcdevit·t 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A small number of users have been using this article as a discussion page, and one in particular is continuing to add POV comments. I am trying to persuade the person to discuss the matter on the talk page, in the meantime it's a tedious waste of time moving comments from the article to the talk page. I hope that a short term protection order might help defuse the situation. --LesleyW 03:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll full protect. I'd do SP but it looks like one of the offending users is a registered user. And. I feel for ya. I know how tedious that kind of stuff is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war has been going for several days and is annoying. Requesting temporary protection. --Chowbok 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. Izehar 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently protected due to offensive additions/amendments. Request for unprotection to correct one verifiable point and add one verifiable point - FrankieB

It's the Andy parade, who don't think he should've won. I actually voted for Andy, and I'm not vandalising. Can we request semi-protection? Sceptre (Talk) 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page is already semi protected. Unclear on the request. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting temporary (a week?) semi-protection. Lots and lots of edits by anons, repeatedly inserting disputed/unverifiable info. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protected. In this case, Izehar, the anons are adding unverified/disputed information, which is vandalism. I mean it's not "PENIS!", but it's definitely still within the realm of the definition of vandalism that we use, especially since it's being done without discussion. Hopefully this will encourage them to create accounts and discuss what they want on the talk page. I counted one anon post on the talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Once again, there's an edit war brewing over this template over several reasons. karmafist 04:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think i'm no longer neutral towards this article, so i'm not going to protect it myself. However, an edit war's been brewing over there, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon. karmafist 11:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd protect it but given that I've had iffy dealings with one of the users involved lately (not you karma, one of the others), I'd rather not. Someone else want to take this? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. We'll let it settle out for a few days. Wikibofh(talk) 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The individual who has been repeatedly disrupting the Hey! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and currently semi-protected Mandy Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pages is now doing the same on the article Once Moore (as Hey! now redirects there), either replacing the article with legal threats aimed at Parys (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia in general, or just blanking it entirely. IP blocks are ineffective as the user appears to have a dynamic IP address. Extraordinary Machine 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The issue seemed fairly small from a quick glance at the history, but it was better to be safe than sorry I suppose. karmafist 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parys and Extraordinary Machine are the same person. The Once Moore page was deleted by an admin about a week or so ago, but Parys/Extraordinary Machine re-created it. Parys has a history of re-creating pages of his that were deleted. He did the exact same thing with the Crystalcherry page when he used the user name 'Cherryrain'. The Once Moore page has a copyrighted image that does NOT belong to Parys/Extraordinary Machine. It also has a link to the entire copyrighted lyrics to a song for which permission was not granted to reproduce them. The song has false information that could result in a loss of album sales for Mandy. Another Wikipedia user already called up Mandy's record company to confirm that the information is totally false, and Parys is totally aware of this fact. Parys, and the other contributors to this page, could be liable to a lawsuit, by Mandy Moore, for harassment. This same false information Parys, and his numerous pseudonym other Wikipedia user names, keeps putting up on the main Mandy Moore page which he has gotten protected. Parys also blocked the mani ip address of the computers in the Los Angeles Public Library and now 1000s of library users can not use Wikipedia. Could somebody please explain who i contact to get this unblocked, i am new to Wikipedia.

The second it was out of page protection the vandal came back and every day the same vandal with different IPs come and edit hundreds of more fake episodes most people are removing it but that vandal keeps coming back. -- Caldorwards4 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. I lied - let me investigate the possibility of blocking the anon. Izehar 19:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of anons. Whether they are dynamic IPs or proxies, I don't know. I think that semi-protection would be appropriate, but Woohookitty seems to think that SP should not be used in this case. I can't tell if SPing it would be compatible with the policy either. Semi-protection is used to deal only when vandalism is a serious problem - is that the case here? It looks more like a content dispute (I don't know if the anon's/anons' edits are rubbish/joke edits or not). IMO sporadic vandalism can be reverted, but it depends how often the page is vandalised. If it is actual vandalism, then you are exempt from the 3RR and can revert the vandalism on sight. Izehar 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to semi protect it. This just keeps going and going and it can certainly be considered vandalism at this point since it's clear that what they are putting up is speculative. Let's make it a bit clearer and semi protect. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There has been a lot of vandalism on this page over the last two days from unregistered users, particularly some who have made a concerted effort to get Ken Dodd in the page. Due to the genreal nature of the page, it ahs become increasingly difficult to distinguish the vandals from the serious (if occaisionally biased) edits. Robdurbar 14:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is rediculous, over ten/fifteen vandulous edits on 28th and 29th. Is anyone gonna take any interest or what?Robdurbar 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Going to semi protect. If this page doesn't SCREAM semi protection, nothing does. Another long term target of vandals. Usually 10 or more a day. Thanks for letting us know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, not sure if you know about semi protection but it'll allow people like you to cleanup the article without having to constantly look over your shoulder at anons and new users vandalizing it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The usual futile revert war has started now that the article has been unprotected. For a while the article was protected from editing by anonymous users, but that was taken away. Since it's an anonymous user who has unilaterally decided that certain links are spam, and he or she is not talkative, perhaps this should be reinstated. If not, then the article needs to be permanently protected, only to be released for a moment when a responsible person wants to edit it, and then immediately re-protected. Postagoras 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it - if the anon reverts again, then the 3RR comes into force. Izehar 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, I was wrong! He can be 3RR-blocked now. Proceeding with the block... Izehar 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is 4 reverts in a 3 day period a qualification? --badlydrawnjeff 19:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oy! You're right - 26 and 28 look alike, don't they? Unblocked with apology. Izehar 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have no clue who s/he is, but it's tough to assume s/he'd know the proper appeal channels, and I happened to notice the note, so... --badlydrawnjeff 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, the anon has edited the page three times in 25 hours... can the page be reverted (again) and protected from this person?
That's not severe enough for full or semi protection. If it was 10-11 times in 25 hours, yes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect this article to deal with invalid edits and vadalism made by a user with mulitple IP address 64.230.46.229, 64.230.46.133, 70.48.42.174, etc. This has been going on for almost a month. QzDaddy 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the anon for 3RR, should make unprotection unnecessary for now. Dmcdevit·t 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't worked. The anon is back once again: "64.230.46.229" | QzDaddy 21:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked again. I think I will temporarily semi protect the page. Maybe he will get discouraged after a couple of days. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for unprotection

Please place new requests at the top. and use {{article|ARTICLE NAME}} when listing a page here, where ARTICLE NAME is the article or page you wish to be unprotected.

Request changing protection to semiprotection, the current revision has many editorial issues. --BenjaminTsai Talk 14:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page indicates a current editorial dispute, and the tag indicates the same (i.e. it was not {vprotected}). Since WP:SEMI explicitly forbids its use during such circumstances, we'll have to live with full-protection for now. -Splashtalk 15:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin remove semi on this page. Was un-semied recently (see history of page). There has been only 1 instance of vandalism since the un-semi and has been resemied? SEMI is not pre-emptive. novacatz 07:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to inquire with BDAbramson to see why he reprotected. I don't want a semi protection war. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think he's justified. For a few days. It looks like the dynamic user who heavily vandalized the article so much that it caused SP is back. The whole idea is to make them go away. :) So I'll keep it SP for a couple of days. I think that's fair. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs unprotection, dispute has cooled down. --Glenzierfoot 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unprotect, per request. However, if the problems start up again I will immediately protect the article. I'm assuming good faith here, meaning I hope that even though you are a new user you do not have an axe to grind in this affair. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am going to have to reprotect it. It was semi protected by Fred Bauder, an arbcom member, as a way from perenially blocking people. "Dispute has cooled down" is not correct. The only reason why the posts from banned users has stopped is *because* of semi protection. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes

Cryptic has locked the userbox page to enforce his removal of the notice about the usebox dispute and the notice of his own vandalism of the page. I need an admin to unlock this page!--God_of War 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Userboxes has been unlocked - I see no reason why Userboxes shouldn't be. Morgan695 05:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin un-semi this page. Content dispute among editors (one anon) occuring on this page. Semi is supposed to be used for vandalism not content disputes. Semi is not supposed to create two classes of editors. Can full prot if edit war persists. novacatz 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look but honestly, this is a very borderline case. So help from other admins would be appreciated on this one. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it vandalism, if only because the anonymous editor is leaving such insulting comments with the summary of each edit. I'd suggest leaving the semi protect for now and let the other users debate this on the talk page. If no one can produce a reference or source for the disputed content, then it shouldn't be added. --Alabamaboy 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Curps arbitrarily protected this page, and I wish to dispite its neutrality. Ardenn 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if the article simply has the NPOV tag re-added. Ardenn 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I urge that it not be unprotected immediately, as various users are edit warring over mostly-minor details.--SarekOfVulcan 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to be stepping in to help out. Mr Sarek. Put your money where your mouth is. Ardenn 00:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ardenn, they're helping you out by having it protected. For those of you who don't know, Ardenn and Anakinskywalker both broke 3RR on this today, but Ardenn is a newbie. For more info, check here on WP:AN/I. karmafist 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=33495695"