Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avenged Eightfold (talk | contribs) at 19:54, 1 August 2010 (→‎{{lu|Ginbot86}}: re). 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.

    Indefinite semi-protection, Personal userpage that has seen vandalism by non-autoconfirmed users. GB86 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Only 2 separate instances of vandalism in the history of the page (only one recently), protection likely not needed. A8x (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    3 month long semi-protection So much vandalism its overwellming. Red Flag on the Right Side 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, As usual, IPs are inserting unsourced speculation and WP:CRYSTAL violations. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes. Please add to pending changes. No need for semi-protect, but there's a steady level of IPs adding needlessly graphic images. Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Having issues with a single image in this article, which is always removed by the same IP/IP group. It truly does belong there, and the person(s) removing it never explain why. Hires an editor (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    10 day semi-protection dispute and future controversial event - the dispute about flags has reared its ugly head once more despite the page being unprotected for mere hours. IPs seem incapable of following the hidden message and going to the talk page to discuss. Instead, they insist on editing the flag regardless with no substance whatsoever. I'll also point out that this page regards an event due to take place on Saturday which will attract dozens of IPs to vandalise due to the controversial nature of the main eventers. I realise pre-emptive protection is frowned upon, but every single time without fail, we get vandalism of these events as they take place. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes protection frequent addition of unsourced and trivial info by various IPs.

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, banned user using many different ip socks over and over to vandalise and disrupt. Mister sparky (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    it's been protected for 1 month, but could it be longer please, say 2 or 3? the offending ip has now been blocked by SPI but the user will just use more. Mister sparky (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism. Diego Grez what's up? 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Unprotect. Protected in contravention of the protection policy and the administrators' policy. Sceptre (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please discuss this with the protecting admin, Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), or at WP:ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you are objecting to the move and then the protect by Deb (there doesn't seem to be a move war in progress so I'm not sure why he/she protected it). Your best course of action is to discuss this with Deb (which you seem to have done) before taking the matter further. Regards.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, y'know, we shouldn't enforce incorrect administrative decisions. There was no move warring in the article's history, and protection should not be used to "enforce naming conventions" unless there's a history of edit warring, of which there isn't. Sceptre (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree. But, it is polite to give the protecting admin the chance to reconsider his/her decision or state a reason first. Like I said above, I don't see a move war in progress so perhaps the admin will reconsider anyway. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The last move on this article was a year ago, and we seem to have a reliable source in the talk archives stating that he added the T to his name without it standing for anything, so this would appear to be a case of protection to enforce a content opinion, unless there's history I'm missing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the T stands for nothing should the . be removed? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to have that particular discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Just putting this here so this can be cleared. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 1 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.pedia:Requests for page protection/SRheading}}

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Today article vandalised 5 times by various armenian IP's. So could u please protect this page for 2 weeks. NovaSkola (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Why do you want it fully protected? You do realize that this means only administrators can edit it, right? The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 14:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. I think this is a content dispute, not vandalism. TNXMan 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I accidentally chose wrong one over semi-protected. It is vandalism due in Azerbaijan, there are no armenian players due Nagorno Karabakh conflict. --NovaSkola (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Repeatedly recreated vandalism. andy (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Three creations spread out over a month isn't enough for protection. TNXMan 14:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's one year and one month, but I was about to decline it myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. --> Gggh talk/contribs 13:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: 6 instances of vandalism since 25 July, also appears to have been a minor edit war culminating on 28 July. A8x (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TNXMan 14:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP edit warring in the past 24 hours. Changes the text of the quoted source to distort it. Apparently it is banned user Armoboy323 (talk · contribs), since the IPs point to similar location, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armoboy323/Archive Grandmaster 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Same as Artsakh. Edit warring using multiple IPs, apparently it is the same person in both articles. Takes no part in discussions at talk. Grandmaster 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Previously, the page was protected from 15 July to 25 July, due to an edit war. On 28 July, the edit war began, with the same IP's involved. Endorse for protection. A8x (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Very high level of vandalism by IP users. Vipinhari || talk 12:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes: 7 instances of vandalism since 27 July, also seems to be a lot of reverting due to anonymous users making POV-basd edits and removing references. As a result, Endorse for protetion. A8x (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. I blocked the IP that was the source of disruption over the last few days. Do come back if problems persist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in the past 24 hours.--Vitriden (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, vandalism. Three days of semi-protection weren't enough. --David Ludwig (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Most of the IP edits are randomly editing the budget of the movie. I think the same editor is changing the value randomly. Merdocx (talk) 5:54, 1 August 2010 (CDT)

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please fix up the damage! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Most of the IP edits over the last week or so have been unconstructive. It seems to be the same two edits - adding highlighting to Alice and changing Avatar's gross - edits clearly at odds with their sources - so I have suspicions it is the same editor changing their IP address. The chart only needs to be updated once a week so semi-protecting it for a week might make them move on. Betty Logan (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    pending revisions - article has a long history of contentious editing. Currently IP is editing against long standing article consensus and is pushing his POV in the discussion on the talk page without listening to the active editors.Semi-protection need for this article. Raghavan(Talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I second this request. This page suffers from bouts of edit warring over the same issues with IPs and new editors ignoring established consensus in the talk pages. There are enough active editors/watchers to take care of pending revisions. At least three of the active editors have reviewer rights, so it will be easy for us to review the changes.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection No reason for be moved w/o reason, furthermore the only letter without it. TbhotchTalk C. 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected Aye, "I" should aye be at "I". TFOWR 11:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection, Hello, I would like to ask indefinite move protection for this article as it is part of De-jure Azerbaijan while De-Facto for Nagorno Karabakh therefore it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto. I am tired of moving back article to native name, while facing vandalism from Armenian users. NovaSkola (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected I take no view on where the article should be; however, future moves must be discussed first. TFOWR 11:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - Edit waring, Attack BLP/Overt praise.--Chanaka L (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I've recently warned one editor after a report at WP:AIV by Chanakal. Maybe worth waiting to see if that resolves the problem. Though I'd add that the article is a WP:BLP and could probably do with PC1 regardless. I'll punt this to another admin to consider. TFOWR 11:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. The other editor has made no useful or constructive contributions and is obviously the source of the trouble here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection - highly visible page, article is the subject of a national news story in canada. Connormahtalk 23:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected For the curious, there's some background here. Damn politicians, eh? TFOWR 10:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes - This article has an extremely long history of semi-protection (such as the one that just ended), but is a target of vandalism. I requested pending changes, since vandalism is frequent, but not frequent enough to warrant semi-protection. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected --RegentsPark (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=376638095"