Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CltFn (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 27 August 2006 (→‎((la|Bat Ye'or))‎). 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.

    Semi-protection from constant vandalism/copyvio. Ryūlóng 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:71.125.207.98 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Unblock abuse protection. Ryūlóng 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Reprotection. Controversy regarding pluto's status as a planet is attracting biased and troll edits. Needs reversion at least once an hour. Someone else requested protection earlier in current requests. Electrawn 02:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: More rampant IP vandalism on this page about Poland. Ryūlóng 01:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:24.121.73.22 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection: This user was originally blocked for trolling at a talk page, on top of several other violations and he's been removing his denied unblock request and replacing it with a new one, even after I've been trying to explain everything about why he was blocked in the first place. He may continue to abuse {{unblock}}, but right now his trolling is limitted, and should be stopped, on the user talk page. Ryūlóng 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Done. —Mets501 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection : Continual reverts by sock-puppets or by anonymous users .--CltFn 04:01, 27 August 2006 (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.

    This article has been protected for a little over two weeks and the users who were causing problems on this article seem to have left. -- Clevelander 13:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Unprotected —Mets501 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2006 (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.

    Several registered users (I believe it may be just one with more than profile) keep posting things on GPS-related pages, which are untrue. This keeps happening on the noted page as well as on the Gps page -- please have a look at the discussion on the bottom of GPS page. Most of their posts are heavily biased, wanting to make the reader believe that the so-called "relativistic corrections" are critical to GPS. The consensus in the GPS community is that these are mere corrections to the Newtonian mechanics formulae as originally applied in the GPS in the 1980-ies. I do not think I need to register in order to be correct, as it is precisely the anonymity option why I appreciate Wiki, just like in the old days. Now, those several users (or is it just one, "19 years old" if one wants to believe the info on their page -- they seem amazingly serious for teenagers) have just misused the fact that they are registered, and have actually locked the above page. Please unlock it. Here is the text they dislike; there is nothing in it that could be deemed speculative -- on the contrary:

    "It is often mistakenly reported that SR and GR theories are critical in operating the NAVSTAR GPS navigation system. However, GPS was never designed to utilize or test either of the two theories. Upon insisting by some relativity physicists in the late 1990-ies, GPS navigation and control messages were included immeasurably small corrections in addition to the originally pre-programmed position corrections (as due to the atmospheric, signal-multipath and other effects). Without explanation however, and in a manner that is not entirely transparent, the relativity physics community has recently started using this correction as a proof for the two relativity theories.

    In fact, the so-called "GPS relativistic correction" is too small to be measured on Earth using even the most precise (geodetic) GPS techniques so-called differential positioning (DGPS), also called the relative or geodetic GPS positioning. Thus in his classical book GPS Satellite Surveying, Alfred Leick writes (p.170): "In relative (mm) positioning, most of the relativistic effects cancel or become negligible." This is because the relativity-predicted values, if real, would amount to less than one half of the normal environmental (insurmountable) geophysical noise.

    Therefore, geometrical differencing in precise positioning cancels out most of the so-called "relativistic effects"; the GPS system can perform equally superb without SR or GR theories. Hence no known (scientific or commercial) GPS receiver seems to utilize the so-called "GPS relativistic correction". The above-cited Leick's book is considered by some to be one of the most authoritative sources on GPS geodesy nowadays. It also lists numerous references that show in greater detail why the so-called "relativistic effects" turn out to be irrelevant for achieving the highest (millimetre-level) obtainable accuracy in precision positioning. Similarly, non-geodetic (navigation) accuracy would not suffer to a noticeable degree either, since, if real, the so-called "relativistic effects" would amount to a centimetre level, which is less than any other single error-source in modern navigation. For instance, the most reliable utilization of GPS in global navigation, the WAAS system, requires no so-called "relativistic corrections" to achieve its metre-level accuracy.

    Hence, there is no evidence at the present that either of the Einstein's relativity theories is critical for the operation of the GPS system as used in local (precision) positioning or global navigation."


    There is a significant amount of controversy on the recent demotion of Pluto to a dwarf planet. The Pluto page seems to be protected. I think that there should be some mention of the controversy surrounding the IAU's decision and surrounding circumstances, since presently there is only a very one-sided discussion of Pluto's demotion. There are a number of major astrophysicists who disagree with the recent decision, and frankly, to have no mention of this at all in the article is somewhat embarassing.

    The page is not actually protected.Voice-of-All 20:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is protected after someone decided to put a one time technical glitch as a "major error". This glitch was NOT worthy of the notation that the user, WCAU1210, put it as.

    As an engineer at a similar type facility, these errors are not easy to have, but are made worse when someone draws attention to them like that. The portion of the page, with the header WHDH Newscast Meltdown needs to get removed for the reasons I stated above. If the event was a major earmark on the station's history, like a tower collapse, or studio burning down, then I can see it. But this was a one time technical error. While trying to remove it previously, I was doing it the incorrect way. I did not intend to leave blank sections and didn't realize there was an edit page part at the top, and was editing it incorrectly using the edit section next to the paragraph. It was this error that caused the blank section, and not malicious vandalisim. This one section I talked about needs to be moved to the talk section, and off of the main page. I hope I posted this correctly. Thank you Mike Fitzpatrick. Necrat

    The page was never actually protected - you can go ahead and edit it. The mere presence of a {{sprotected}} or {{protected}} template doesn't protect the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the protection and all that, not fully reading the details. I also removed the "Mektdown" story -- if this was explained in the "edit summary" box when the change was made, none of this would've happened. I'm just ashamed and disgusted of the whole thing -- if only I could get the last couple hours of my life back. Again, my apologies. -- azumanga 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (This is the original reasoning used in the "request for unprotection".) The article has been under protection from an edit war for nearly 2-3 weeks. This was stemming from how several users particularly viewed a source which they claimed to be biased; however, thusfar they haven't been able to adduce the evidence to back their claims. While there have been significant additions on the talk page, the opposing party that has been involved in it has been ambiguously unclear of what he wants removed and has set down his own rules on how Wikipedia's sources are to be used. While he feels that sources should be completely unbiased (a misconstrued principle of Wikipedia), the one source I'm using (a collection of witness testimonies during a massacre in the USSR) is more than reputable since it has been cited extensively by a variety of Sovietologist and ethnologist authors. Third party participation has been limited but nevertheless helpful in reconciling the differences. I'm willing to make the concession of allowing the "neutrality and fact" tag to remain for the sake of avoiding further edit wars and so I could continue editing the article. also.--MarshallBagramyan 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you clarify what your request is exactly? The above seems for of a statement than a request.Voice-of-All 20:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I shouldn't have cut-paste it...I feel that although the article has been protected, I would like it to be unlocked so I could continue to solely to finish up the article. The main reason there were so many reverts was because of the addition of the "neutrality and factuality" tag which was subseqently added and removed by various editors leading to the protection. Although the opposing editor who kept adding the tag has been vague on what he wants changed and his claims to not add information have largely been unsubstantiated by sources, I would like to continue to add and complete the article while making the concession that at the same time allowing the tag to remain so all issues can be finally resolved via the talk page.--MarshallBagramyan 21:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it is protected, I can only add a)specific consensus supported text b)tags that clearly reflect the situation, c)small/unrelated edits from protected edit requests, or d)spelling/grammer fixes. I can't unprotect it for certain editors to make edits and then re-protect.Voice-of-All 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, in that case I suppose I'll wait it out until the article is completely unprotected but if you can post that on the talk page, I would just like to a)clean up the grammar, b)format the paragraphs and c)clarify the citations, I won't do any significant editing.--MarshallBagramyan 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, reading your profile, I would much appreciate your mediation on the article itself. Thank you. --MarshallBagramyan 23:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection - With all of the IPs I have no idea what's going on. Ryūlóng 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - This page is has had a great deal of vandalism, espescially do the popularity of the game it is about, as well as the nature of some of its players. Shadow 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Done. —Mets501 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Raccoon_Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Raccoon Fox (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    - Semi-Protection. I wish to have my User Page, Talk Page, and Sub Pages ALL placed under protection, from constant vandalism by people from anonymous IP addresses that KEEP CHANGING. My request was originally denied, but i will keep asking until it is accepted. I'm sick of the homophobia at wikipedia. What upsets me even further, is that people take it to AIM and MSN and email after going to my userpage.

    Again, the following pages need to be put under semi-protection (protection from non-registered users):

    I would like to see something done regarding this vandalism and harassment.

    Listed below are the long long LONG lists of vandalism:

    I wish to see something done about this excessive vandalism and harassment. I could go on and on posting links, but i think three is good for now. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected per request, though there is not really that much vandalism. I did not protect the talk page. As for the diffs, WP:AN is better suited for that, though I doubt much will happen if the IPs revolve so much. Voice-of-All 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much. This will make my stay here MUCH easier, since i no longer have to deal with the morons trashing my pages. :) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 23:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection - An anon user from Croatia believes Paul Skalić is Croat, despite authoritative sources that say otherwise and consensus from a number of other editors. The anon keeps violating 3RR but since he is anon it can't be stopped by blocking his account. Discussions on the talk page are useless (he just makes personal attacks and is not rationale). User has stated "I'll enthisiasticly keep on deleting any kind of rubish on wiki". A semi-protection might slow down his reverts? Same problem at Encyclopedia. -- Stbalbach 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Paul Skalić semi-protected. —Mets501 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    Semi-protection - Obvious vandalism problem Mjk2357 14:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Only one vandal, who has now been indefinitely blocked. —Mets501 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - This page has been semi-protected once due to vandalism. Again, it's been being vandalised by anon users sistematically. José San Martin 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Done. —Mets501 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Subject of article is a living person who has been released from his World Wrestling Entertainment contract, prompting a rash of edits from anon & new users inserting rumors, speculation, and other unsourced/poorly sourced and unencyclopedic content. - Chadbryant 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Done. —Mets501 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection - Users keep vandalizing and removing a section on this article. --CFIF ☎ 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Fully protected due to an edit war. Please discuss changes on the talk page. —Mets501 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full protection: I know pre-emptive is wrong, but this user is severely abusive in his edits. Ryūlóng 03:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined - You know it's wrong, so why suggest it? —Mets501 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection requested. User:SledDogAC seemed to spawn a massive range of IP sockpuppets, each inserting the text that the user had wanted to be added and had been removed by multiple people, months-long discussion on their talk page and a couple blocks. With the large number of edits, the pool of addresses, and the extreme POV in them (the ADN and Susan Butcher (who recently passed away, hence the attention) ones in paticular being pretty out there.) -Mask 01:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just also to note, the user will occasionally give a ref to helpsleddogs.org, the group he created and it appears is the only active member of (the AC stands for Action Cooalition) -Mask 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Semi-protected, Semi-protected, and Semi-protected. —Mets501 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This has been semied for a LOOONG time (a month or longer maybe?) and right now there is new info out and it is on slashdot - so perhaps contributions from "new users" would be worthwhile here. And it looks kind of embarrassing... RN 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 09:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection - Multiple daily erroneus edits have been made. Most have been vandalism and just anonymous IP's. I recommend protection for a short period of time to allow for a cooling off period. Luke 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 09:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. We have been having a problem with vandals in the last few days, and I would apprecitate semi-protection at least on the page.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 09:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think protection is needed any longer on this page, as everyone seems to be in agreement to discuss before making changes to this guideline (still not sure where the suggestion came from in the first place, as we'd already moved to the talk page by them). -- nae'blis 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Voice-of-All 08:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been under protection for a while. The Colbert Report aired it's show about Wikipedia over a month ago. The Elephant page will probably always be a target, but the best way to stop vandalism is to block the vandals that keep doing it.--67.21.162.150 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Its still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Voice-of-All 08:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=72127233"