Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Avant Guard (talk | contribs)
4,472 edits
Sunholm (talk | contribs)
1,437 edits
{{la|Biff Rose}}
Line 100: Line 100:
etc.).
etc.).
###############Please only edit below this line okay.###############-->
###############Please only edit below this line okay.###############-->
===={{la|Biff Rose}}====
The article has been protected for too long. Allow open editing again. --[[User:Sunfazer|Sunfazer]] | [[User talk:Sunfazer|Talk]] 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
===={{la|Digimon}}====
===={{la|Digimon}}====
I guess the article was put on semi-protection earlier today, but I can only see 2 vandalism edits and both by the same anon. There was a 3rd vandalism edit, but that was more like the day before. All in all, that's pretty much the norm for this article. The edits are usually caught pretty quickly and corrected. I think it would be wiser to deal with this on a user to user basis rather than protect the whole article from anons. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess the article was put on semi-protection earlier today, but I can only see 2 vandalism edits and both by the same anon. There was a 3rd vandalism edit, but that was more like the day before. All in all, that's pretty much the norm for this article. The edits are usually caught pretty quickly and corrected. I think it would be wiser to deal with this on a user to user basis rather than protect the whole article from anons. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:53, 13 May 2006


"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

    Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

    Semi-protection - Frequently vandalised by IPs, some of which may be bad behaving Trinity Grammairians that would be misusing their internet and email within the school premisis. It's not a happy face as their staff at this school would almost ceratinly not be pleased.Myrtone 11:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection - A dynamic IP vandal is repetitavely vandalising my talk page (my user page has already had to be semi-protected from this vandal). Please semi-protect my talk page for the time being.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is now protected, but I just archived my talk page, not knowing that the protection would not affect the archived page. Could the page User talk:Conrad Devonshire/Archive 1 please be semi-protected as well for now?--Conrad Devonshire Talk 11:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. Constant spamming and reverts of spamming. Warnings issued to spammers, and repeated blockings, neither have stopped spam. Article was semi-protected before, and as soon as the protection was removed, the spammer returned.--Vercalos 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The two IPs have been blocked.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. I counted 17 users who have vandalized on this page since May 5th. AMK152 and Caldorwards4 agree with me that this page is getting vandalized by to many IP adresses to much of the time. Warning's have been issued on the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episode page and on talk page's. ForestH2

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. The Transhumanism article (which has been judged to be a Good Article, has been through Peer Review, and is now a Featured Article Candidate) has been edited 17 times and is now being vandalized by 86.133.14.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) AKA 86.140.81.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has actually identified himself as Simon Young and provided info@designerevolution.net as his email address.

    Semiprotected. Jkelly 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    sprotect. Being hit rather hard by 84.45.136.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has an apparent vendetta against User:The Enslaver. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The IP in question was blocked by Musical Linguist already for 24 hours. Seems to be no need for protection. Cowman109Talk 00:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. Often vandalism of the "Notable Alumni" section--students often make jokes and/or add themselves. Occasionally, students post that "they hate this *explitive* place" and such. Zooobala 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. Continued vandalism from shared IPs. Edits are almost invariably vandalism. Limegreen 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. Heavy vandalism has been ongoing now for some time. —Viriditas | Talk 22:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection Many recent postings of rumors and vandalism. Aaru Bui 10:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection What a serious page to vandalise, no need for non-amins to edit.Myrtone 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    True...but I've been through this on AN before, and most of the people there would rather let IP/anons edit policy pages...even though even when admins edit it, it gets reverted most of the time unless discussed first...go figure...Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection requested - one user (with two accounts) keeps inserting blatantly POV passages of text (part of which are probably copyvios) and removing paragraphs they don't agree with, despite being constantly reverted. Judging by the page history, this has been going on for a week now. I'm considering myself disqualified to set the protection just in case, since I've reverted some of the most unencyclopaedic changes a few times myself (I don't consider myself involved though, since I have no opinion on the actual issue). - ulayiti (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll watchlist and block/warn if needed.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 17:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who made the request to have full protetion for the Iditarod page (see below) does not want the page to mention the animal protection veiwpoint on the Iditarod. Details are given about the race course and who won the race. It's only fair that it also includes details about dog deaths, illnesses and injuries in the race. I have not removed information that I disagreed with. I simply added the animal protection viewpoint. Ulayiti claims to have no opinion, yet this person constantly deletes the animal protection viewpoint. If the Iditarod page is to meet Wikipedia's desire that articles as a whole be neutral, equal weight should be given to the animal protection side of the Iditarod story. I suspect that Ulayiti is asking for full protection as a way of keeping information about the cruelties the dogs endure for getting to the general public. 12 May 2006 SledDogAC

    Semiprotection; this page seems to be getting a lot of childish edits (presumably from E3 speculations) from several IPs. Mariana 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection requested, continuous vandalism by several IPs, spurred by the article presence in the main page (he is the newly-elected President of Italy). --Angelo 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:This page is protected (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full Protection requested, it makes a lot of sense. Vandalism would be very serious.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to since it is a common link from protected pages (oft vandalized) and there is no need for non-admins to edit this. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection requested. This page is seeing a lot of vandalism since election results are being released today. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted page. Page needs protection so there is no more recreations made. Page was already deleted 3 times. Since I am not an admin, I cannot properly protect the page the way it is intended to be. Thank you! DGX 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to reacreation. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

    The article has been protected for too long. Allow open editing again. --Sunfazer | Talk 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess the article was put on semi-protection earlier today, but I can only see 2 vandalism edits and both by the same anon. There was a 3rd vandalism edit, but that was more like the day before. All in all, that's pretty much the norm for this article. The edits are usually caught pretty quickly and corrected. I think it would be wiser to deal with this on a user to user basis rather than protect the whole article from anons. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was protected four or so days ago due to an edit war. I feel the edit war should have abated and the article clearly needs improvement so I suggest it be returned to an editable status. Cedars 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was semiprotected about two weeks ago.--User At Work 20:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sorry I forgot about this one. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that this page was protected meaninglessly. I looked through the history, and it looked like vandalism, not editing disputes. I suggest the page either be unprotected completely, or just semi-protected. But I really see no reason that it should ever have been protected completely. Once again, it looked like mostly vandalism, I do not know why that user requested protection, and why the admin proceeded to protect it. I will investigate further and see it this was done appropriately. Wikipeedio 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, listing my talk page for unprotection. The situation under which the page was protected is over, the admin who placed it under protection doesn't care to remove it one way or the other. Hoping to get a consensus on this, last time I posted request for unprotection it was arbitrarily removed from the list with only one negative response. Thanks. MSTCrow 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not yet...Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet? What are the posted criteria? MSTCrow 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Per discussion on talk page, would an admin be so kind? There does not appear to be ongoing vandalism on this article any longer, if indeed there ever was. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • reply policy) 21:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

    You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.

    See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

    Hello, this category is fully protected, so could you please add this link into it : fr:Catégorie:Seldjoukides. Thanks. Dorothée 09:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=52987142"