[go: nahoru, domu]
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 4: Line 4:
==Current requests for protection==
==Current requests for protection==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
{{Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/PRheading}}
===={{Li:Seal.jpg}}====
===={{Li|Seal.jpg}}====
'''Fully protect''' - image is on commons but the image name is generic and susceptible to being uploaded on English Wikipedia. Has previously been deleted several times for this reason. Precedent for protection is [Wikipedia:Image file names|here]. [[User:Nardman1|Nardman1]] 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Fully protect''' - image is on commons but the image name is generic and susceptible to being uploaded on English Wikipedia. Has previously been deleted several times for this reason. Precedent for protection is [Wikipedia:Image file names|here]. [[User:Nardman1|Nardman1]] 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Revision as of 22:57, 17 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 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.

    Fully protect - image is on commons but the image name is generic and susceptible to being uploaded on English Wikipedia. Has previously been deleted several times for this reason. Precedent for protection is [Wikipedia:Image file names|here]. Nardman1 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Berkowitz

    Fully protect and prevent recreation - deleted four times and recreated again. RHB Talk - Edits 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect Many edits made to this page, most of them vandalism to his name Fatjoe151 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    Semi-protect due to countless "She is hot" (possibly referring to Aayla Secura) vandalism by IPs. // PoeticDecay 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of vandalism. Targetted from [1] Catchpole 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. The subject (now dead) is facing allegations that her records were actually plagiarised from others; although this has not been proved, an anon. IP is treating them as such. The edits are coming from various IP addresses in the same range. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. ~ Arjun 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semiprotection. Daily vandalism.DavidOaks 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Arjun 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semiprotection. Daily vandalism. DavidOaks 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - edit war. Nareklm 19:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected revert warring. ~ Arjun 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect - The current revert war is about which older consoles should be added to the list. Reverting on both sides of the argument involves registered users so semi wouldn't really work. Koweja 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (o rly?) 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Hellothere21 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full Protect - This user was blocked indefinitely yesterday for vandalism, but continues to remove warning templates on their talk page and replace them with personal attacks and childish nonsense. I noticed the {{vutprotected}} template on WP:UTM and request that this is done in this case. Hersfold (talk|work) 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Majorly (o rly?) 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect - Requests for deletion on members of this category have shown a vendetta like behavior and are initiated without first tagging pages. In one such incedent the page was vandalised immediatly after restoration. A sub categorical protection would not help as the comics being deleted are not always in the same category. The Shroud 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined If you're requesting that pages be prevented from being added to this category, that cannot be done. If you're requesting that edits be prevented from being made to this category page, that can be done, but it's not needed here. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Protecting the category a bunch of articles belong to will not do anything at all. It will only protect the category, not the actual articles in the category. Nishkid64 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect - persistent IP vandalism PeaceNT 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 18:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect - This page is subject to ongoing vandalism and manipulation by profit oriented companies wishing to use WikiPedia as a brochure. Temporary semi-protection was enabled previously but since it was removed this continues on a day to day basis. Permanent semi-protection would reduce the amount of vandalism from anonymous IP editors who frequently make minor edits to add their product and external links. Josh Froelich 16:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protect - Current edit war over Allotments. The revision at 15:20 GMT is correct. TDN 15:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This article has only been edited once (i.e. by you) in the past two and a half months; please review Wikipedia:Protection policy#Uses. -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Majorly (o rly?) 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect - IP and new user vandalism along with repeated personal attacks. STS01 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect- Heavy vandalism, as usual. Retiono Virginian 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Mais oui! (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect - personal attacks by IP addresses, eg User:217.44.98.169, which was blocked last night, but the sockpuppeteer has simply moved on to yet another IP today. --Mais oui! 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Let's see if that works. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect. Protect from the current edit warring, until reaching a consensus.--Gerash77 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. ~ Arjun 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Osli73 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect. Personal threats on my talk page from IP addresses. Example[2]. Cheers Osli73 09:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- tariqabjotu 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Srebrenica massacre (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect. Persistent vandalism by numerous IP addresses, mainly based in Sarajevo, have been deleting registered editor's comments. Some recent examples [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Cheers Osli73 09:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined All the vandalism you point out was done days ago, prior to the previous semi-protection. There's no need for it now. -- tariqabjotu 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. A lot of IP addresses have been blanking the page, adding anti-Xbox 360 drivel, adding their own gamertag into the page, and so on. A few recent spats of vandalism have caused parts of the page to be lost in revert edits. There's also a good number of registered users (new ones) doing the same thing, but we've been able to revert those and warn them on their user page appropriately. --Masem 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Due to vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect Repeated attacks by an anon spammer recently. --Wildnox(talk) 06:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. The two IPs which were spamming/vandalizing were blocked.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect - User Elsanaturk keeps removing information that he does not like, and has thus started a needless edit war. He is removing information that is backed up by 9 sources! If you see on the discussion, he keeps asking me to prove my claim, YET I HAVE SHOWN 9 SOURCES! He simply does not like the information presented, and claims that all of these sources, 7 of which I believe are books (!) are biased, without showing any proof of his outrageous claim. I am also sure that this user is a sock, and he has continuously made personal attacks in the past.Azerbaijani 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Some anon's think this is a humorous topic, and it's been repeatedly vandalized. Abbenm 03:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High levels of vandalism by 5 users & IPs. Chupper 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Vandalism appears to have calmed down - watchlist and revert anything that comes up. riana_dzasta 04:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arjun, who agreed to semi-protect the article earlier today, added the template but apparently did not apply the admin thing, so the article's still being vandalized (more than a dozen times today I think). I haven't been able to reach him at his talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined lol; I replied on my talk page, it was a mistake. But I am glad I did, read WP:NOPRO, and even though it states that it applies to Featured articles, normally "in the news" and "DYK" are also included. ~ Arjun 02:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect. This page has been repeatedly whitewashed by anonymous users, with text copied from the website of this "institution." BuckRose 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. well anyway, if it was just IP's then it should be semiprotected. So defently not full protection. ~ Arjun 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. High level of IP vandalism. Anon Vandals continue to add speculative information and WP:OR with sections such as Unconfirmed or Rumored Characters. See Version dated 22:40, February 15, 2007-- bulletproof 3:16 06:01, 16 February 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.

    User:Slrubenstein said that he/she would unprotect the page on the talk page.... but it's still protected. futurebird 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect Article has been semi-protected for awhile according to the edit history, maybe it should be unportected for now. Lrrr IV 10:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Majorly (o rly?) 18:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    recommend unprot. Page has been fully protected for over two and a half months, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the talk page in almost as long (last comment on talk page was December 5, 2006). — George Saliba [talk] 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected As mentioned talk page indicates no heated discussion and page has been protected long enough.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Vox Humana 8'

    User has now been unblocked - normal business is now resuming. This will involve a need to use this user talk page - please unprotect it!--Vox Humana 8' 14:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- tariqabjotu 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gears of War

    this needs to have a new website link on the bottom. Gearsofwar.wikia.com Darthraul 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Darthraul[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.

    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]

    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

    recommend unprot Article has been fully protected for about 2 weeks, needs to be updated. Lots of discussion on how to reach acceptable compromises on some disputed issues. At least drop it down to semiprotected. --Anietor 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Edit war seems to have died down and article was protected long enough.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protect. Heavy IP vandalism with about 12 vandalism edits per day. TimVickers 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect. Persistent edit warring. Wooyi 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. Heavy edit war between my anonymous compatriots. Very fighting words in edit summaries written in Polish. Przepla 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect. High level of vandalism. Creation of new usernames to avoid blocking. Cynrin 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. Heavy vandalism from various single-minded IPs. Perhaps protect user page also. GracenotesT § 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly (o rly?) 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request re-semi-protection. This article has been heavily vandalized by anons since it had been unprotected. Could someone reprotect this? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined the thing is I protected it the other day, but I didn't realize that it was on the main page, so please read WP:NOPRO. ~ Arjun 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. Of the last 100 Edits, I count 45 by unregistered users or new, 38 or which were reverted (80%+) with 20 reverts. No registered user Edits were reverted. Mostly vandalous edits by unregistered or new users place an undue burden on maintaining or improving article quality. Please note the "Core Topic" status for this article as to need for improvement at the top of the Talk page. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection It's linked from the main page, but way too much vandalism today. Xiner (talk, email) 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected yes it is. ~ Arjun 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection - constant target for IP vandals adding nonsense holiday, even though it's already the day after. Request 2 week semi-protect until it calms down. Nardman1 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 21:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection - Over the past week, anonymous vandals and new accounts have been introducing all manner of (occasionally unnoticed) idiocy into this tasty article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected I was a little on the wall with this but I think that Semiprotection wouldn't be a bad idea. However please don't mock the vandals. ~ Arjun 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection - I am requesting semi-protection on this page due to the amount of press this future album is receiving for its viral marketing ploys. Many of the rabid Nine Inch Nails fans are contributing to the article in unproductive ways (diff, diff, diff). I think if the anons saw that they would have to register and wait 5 days to put information on the article, they would definitely just forget it and move on, making the article much more stable and much easier to edit. Thanks. –King Bee (T • C) 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect IP vadilism over the last week. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    recommend unprot Unprotection was brought up on the talk page a week ago, no serious objections to unprotection have been raised. --Measure 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected ~ Arjun 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection - Heavy IP vandalism, 14 vandalism edits so far today. TimVickers 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected riana_dzasta 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=108941217"