Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Shortcut:
WT:RFPP

Contents

[edit] Sludgegulper

I just wanted to add the reference to alcohol made from Potatoes...

http://www.toffi.net/kiss/geschichte/g_44.htm

But because of protection, I can't

Hope someone can. THanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sludgegulper (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Bell

Does anyone know why this has been protected for so long?

Thanks

John

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance, looks like edit warring back at the beginning of December. The public face of GBT/C 11:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:VoABot

Is it just me or has VoABot not made a run in a while. It seems that is has been a couple hours and the page is getting a little backed up. Would someone look into this? Thanks. Nevermind, it seems to be back and working fine. 149.169.159.251 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dreadstar

User:Dreadstar has protected several articles in which User:Montanabw was involved in a content dispute. What's going on here? To me, Dreadstar's actions seem inappropriate.

  • Chaps protected. In this case, Dreadstar violates Wikipedia:Protection policy, namely Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page because of a dispute in which they are in any way involved. Dreadstar has made many edits to Chaps.

I am one of the editors involved in the content dispute on Chaps, but I had nothing whatsoever to do with Steer wrestling. In my book, these actions amount to ganging up on editors with whom Montanabw disagrees.

Is this the correct venue for this issue? --Una Smith (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have asked another admin to protect the page since I had edited the article previously, but my involvement was not in the content dispute itself, but to try and stop the edit warring and personal attacks editor Una Smith was involved in. Una expressed her support for my actions at the time: [3]. I'd suggest again that Una work it out with Montana on the talk page, edit warring is unacceptable, as are personal attacks against another editor. Dreadstar † 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Chaps was the subject of an ordinary content dispute, not edit warring. Dreadstar made numerous comments on Montanabw's talk page concerning the content dispute itself. Now Dreadstar appears to accuse me of edit warring and personal attacks. I deny both accusations. --Una Smith (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is edit warring: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. As for civility and personal attacks, I'll let Montana and any other editors you've attacked provide diffs, but this one where you said "My intent is also to stop you before you savage any more newbies and alienate any more established editors" along with a few other comments you made, ones that I will take the time to find if it becomes necessary, were sufficient to show that the allegations of personal attacks made by you may have merit. Note that I didn't block you for edit warring and personal attacks, I merely protected the article under dispute. Dreadstar † 21:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar basically was not editing the article, but rather removing unsourced, contentious content from the chaps article and trying to show us some ways that a consensus can be reached. I see no overstepping of boundaries. His previous work cited above was to try to administrate issues with an editor who was promoting fringe theories in a number of the rodeo articles as well as making some significant personal attacks, edit warring and tedendious editing. . As for the rest, I have been enduring UnaSmith's personal attacks, fake "warnings", bullying, and edit warring for over a month now. She claims she is not personally attacking me, but her actions certainly feel otherwise from my point of view. We had a strenuous but legitimate difference of opinion over the article bitless bridle, which bled over to a "competing" article, hackamore, an article where a different admin (Rlevse) attempted to settle the dispute. Anyone can skim the talk pages of those two articles to get a feel for what was going on. Part of the original problem was the behavior of a third editor, who was new to wikipedia but initially caused some significant disruption on several articles (not all horse-related), but who, to her credit, appears to have detached herself from these disputes and is settling down to responsible editing. However, Una has expressed that she considers me to have been mean and unfair to this person, but now that the earlier issue has quieted, Una seems unable to quit going into articles where I have expertise, have edited extensively, and she is challenging material in a manner that seems to go a bit beyond simple requests for verification. This was one example. The bottom line is that I make credible, sourced edits that she disagrees with and she reverts, then "warns" me and makes broad-based accusations against me when I dispute anything she says. I just want to get back to editing without having to defend every sentence of several stable, long term articles. And I am tired of trying to explain certain concepts over and over again, even after providing some good sources. I don't see why this discussion even needs to be here. I just want to be left alone to edit articles to the best of my ability and make appropriate changes to good faith suggestions for improvement without having to have every vandalism revert I do challenged as "tenditious." Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the admins?

There are a lot of active admins, but I guess their attention is elsewhere. There are requests hours old that haven't been addressed. Sorry if it sounds like I'm complaining, but it does irk me because I'd be happy to address these requests if I had the tools to do so. Enigma msg! 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... well, if that happens, drop a note in my talk page or post at AN. I am on semi-wikibreak, but if there were a bot posting a note in my talk page whenever the backlog becomes too big, I will gladly come to help. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I hear you. Although it may seem that way, there are times when vandalism is busy (most of the time), or CAT:CSD is way full, or any one of the many other pressing issues. All in all, I do not find RFPP to be generally neglected. Thanks for your attention. -- Alexf42 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I find it to be neglected, but I'll try and leave messages for admins in the future. I've done it in the past. Enigma message 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You could also try adding {{adminbacklog}} to the top of the page if it gets really out of hand.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Temporary full-protection A new editor has joined to edit the article who is a suspected sockpuppet of an editor who has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry. The original editor who was indef blocked was intent on deleting the article, eventhough it was keep per AFD. The editors who were involved in editing the article are not around now, so I am forced to keep an eye on the article, but it is turning into an edit war, because the editor does not follow consensus. The editor is just interested in editing this article and one more , so SPA. Until more editors come around who are interested in editing this article it should be fully-protected to prevent disruption and to avoid inflaring the situation of the new editor whos edit style is tendentious at the least. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article has stopped for a while now. The editor in question, user:Life.temp, is only suspected by Igor to be a sockpuppet. Igor is the editor who was edit warring, and now he's requesting protection to stop the edit warring, which is ridiculous. Life.temp is now discussing things on the talk page with me and hasn't made any edits in a while. There's no reason to protect this page. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:30, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Okay let's not protect the page but get WP:EA so others can help us settle our diferences. Because at this point I fill uncomfortable, that edits are being made, and what I recommending is being ignored. Also I was not edit warring on the article but reverted back to your edits that we discussed on the article that Life.temp did not respect and kept reverting to his version. Please check my reverts. So maybe we still need article protection untill this is settled amiable? Igor Berger (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because you reverted to my version, and just because we agreed on something, doesn't mean you can revert-war in order to uphold it. When you and another editor continue to revert each other, that's called an edit war, no matter what, and it's not allowed. I frankly don't care if you feel comfortable. You edit-warred, and now the other editor and I are discussing possible edits, have nearly come to an agreement and are about to make those edits, and now, rather than joining the discussion, you're requesting protection? No. This is not helpful. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:53, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
And you deleting everything per WP:STEAM is? Igor Berger (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have a problem with my edits take it to the article's talk page, Igor. This discussion is about protection. Your request for protection is not helpful, and if you can't defend it any further then simply withdraw it. This is not an opportunity for you to start making general complaints. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:14, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Are you giving me an opurtunity for a discussion? You just deleted about 30 % of the article, one delete after another, in less than 10 minutes. Do you think I can make an input when you are acting as a main editor of the article and excersing your authority? Igor Berger (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No one needs to ask permission prior to making an edit. Talk page, Igor. If you want to complain about my edits, that's the place to do it. I'm done responding here. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:22, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Please protect the page so it can be handled in proper WP:DR with RFC or EAR. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

← This user continues to refuse to discuss anything, despite there being a constructive ongoing discussion on the talk page. I urge the admin reading this to please not protect the article, as it will only stop the constructive editors engaged in the discussion from making edits based on demonstrated consensus. Please view the discussion at Talk:Anti-Americanism#Removals and rationale -- to which Igor has not contributed, other than to announce his request for protection. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:31, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

This user, is me, so stop refering to me condescendingly. We were discussing on the article's talk page. And when I contested your edits, you left me a note on my talk page that you do not want to work with me. So, as long as your edits are to your liking, it is okay, right? Please protect the page so we can seek uninvolved experienced editor's opinion. Let's have time to build consensus not rush to outcome. Igor Berger (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
When you contested my edits, I asked for specific examples rather than vague reprimands. When it seemed you were not going to comply with that and instead just continue repeating yourself, that's when I left you a message saying that I was tired of you lashing out at people when criticized. Don't try to make it seem like I wasn't willing to discuss this, because anyone looking at the dicussion on the talk page will see that I tried -- repeatedly. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:18, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Look I am not against your edits. It is the way you did it that is objectionable. I am sure you know what is sourced and opinionated, but instead of letting editors source it and rewrite the opinionated parts to fact, with a sourced references, you just slashed it all out in 10 minutes - 30% of the article. Why don't you give time for other editors to come to the article and assist in rewritting it? Why not takle one paragraph - context at a time. Raise it on a talk page and let editors try to source it if possible, and if not we delete it per policy. We need to work together in harmony to build Wikipedia, not in my way or the highway So if you are willing to slow down and respect my requests as well as wait a bit for other established editors to join the article, then there is no protection needed. Please learn to compromise. And you should know better, you have been here a long time, much much longer than me. Please set an example in amiability. Igor Berger (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We were working together in harmony, but then someone went and requested protection. I cleaned up an article riddled with POV and OR. I discussed all these changes first on the talk page -- a discussion which you did not participate in. Instead, you didn't like what was being discussed and decided to put a stop to it by getting the article protected. And when I complained about this, you insulted me. Goodbye, Igor. I'm done with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:41, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I asked for page protection because I was and am conserned with suspected sockpuppet user:Life.temp. When he first started editing the article I asked for your help request on your talk page for help with the user, a few weeks ago So after I asked for your help and I supported your edits, you just said I am edit warring. Does that makes sense? Why you did not say, Igor let his reverts stay and do not revert him. So while I was thinking I was doing the right thing with agreement from you, I was going against the grain! Am I a Jack's Ass! I have added a link to this section of the talk page from the project page. I still would like to have the page protected, so edits can be discussed in detail and not enforced. Igor Berger (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove {{editprotected}} section

I think that requests for edits to protected pages are more efficiently served by {{editprotected}} and CAT:EP than by a section here, and having two parallel processes for requesting changes is confusing. Is there any objection to me removing the editprotected section from this page and changing all the documentation to direct all requests to {{editprotected}}?? Happy‑melon 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is confusing personally. No harm with having more than one place. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forgive me, but are editors so fed up with vandalism nowadays....

that just a few IP edits a day constitutes a request for protection? As of the timestamp of this message, witness the requests for Italian Renaissance, Bridge, and San Francisco Giants, respectively. If I were an admin I would decline those because in my view, there hasn't been enough IP vandalism on any of those articles to warrant protection. ArcAngel (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, this wasn't meant to question the judgement of the editors who requested the protection of those pages, it just left me wondering what constitutes "high levels" of vandalism, in an admin's view? ArcAngel (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. To answer your question, if all I see in the last several edits was stuff happening then being reverted, that's enough for me. This is my first attempt to do this kind of thing. - Denimadept (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends, really, though admins should be careful with protecting, and protection shouldn't be used just to shut IPs out: if there's a huge amount of vandalism in a short amount of time, I'm likely to protect, and if there's sustained vandalism to a page over the course of a week or more, I'm likely to protect then as well, but in cases such as one or two vandals on a page, or a page that received two or three instances of vandalism each day for two or three days, I wouldn't protect, and would just revert if necessary. I personally wouldn't have protected Italian Renaissance, but it's well in the realms of admin discretion: I don't oppose the protection. Acalamari 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And what happens when a vandal edit is accidentally kept inside a constructive edit? How long could it last then? MMetro (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am fed up with this lenient system that literally promotes vandalism. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What's lenient about it? We revert, then we block and/or protect when warranted, hopefully without shutting out any potentially good editors. We don't have the authority to impose the death penalty for Wikipedia vandalism (yet). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What's lenient about it is, especially in the case of anon. IP edits is that no action can be taken. I requested semi-protection on an article that has been anonymously edited at least 10 times by the same individual (reposting of identical information) and that request was denied. I've had an argument with a friend before on why "anyone would what to contribute" to Wikipedia. I'm starting to see his side more and more. Modor (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Modor

Did you give the guy any warnings? Some of them might think their edit didn't go through or something unless you tell them to stop. It also has the additional benefit that they can get blocked faster (WP:AIV). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave the guy several warnings and the edits continued. Unfortunately, he uses his school's computer system, so different, but yet similar IP#s are used. Modor (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Modor

We can always range block if you can find an admin who can do it. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My request for semi protection

Why was my request to semi protect Ginger deleted? It was legitimate, and certainly not old or inactive. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It was most likely archived by the bot. However your request was granted by me, so your request was not ignored. Acalamari 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. And thanks for granting my request. :) --- Krezos Farland (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Acalamari 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A feature request: IP-range protection

I've started a discussion on WP:VPT about a method to protect articles against IP ranges. I figured that people that haunted this talk page would be likely to have views one way or the other.Kww (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin instructions

I just made a proposal that we find a standard location for admin instructions and I used rfpp as an example for how it could look (link is in the top right corner). Let me know what you think. The rfpp admin instruction page I put up is just a very rough draft (since I needed an example page), so feel free to edit it as much as you'd like. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Is this page archived? If so, where? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this page isn't archived: there's just the "fulfilled/denied requests" section, and after they've been in there for a few hours, the bot removes them. Acalamari 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making it harder to IP edit

Is there anything we can do about changing the accessibility to vandals? If the IP had to log in just to acknowledge that they were going entering a mode that could edit pages, it would be the child proof bottle. Users already log in before editing, and it's way too easy to edit through either the top edit this page button, or the edit in each subsection. Note that I'm not saying eliminate IP editing, since anons give us valuable help, but make the process a much more intentional act. Some people click on edit this page without knowing what they're doing. That log in could also track if the person does vandalize a page, and take appropriate measures at the time of access. MMetro (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are difficulties. There is no way to allocate selected protection of articles, so if the article is semi-locked then all IPs and non-autoconfirmed users are prevented from editing. The only other thing would be for some script to remove the edit buttons while still being able to edit, but then what? A user would have to access the editpage by telling the URL to ?action=edit, which would be too much for new users I think and would put good faith editors off. Also, if a vandal really wanted to vandalise, that wouldn't be much of a deterrent (although it might prevent a lot of fly-by vandalism). It's not a good idea, and probably not workable. As for good faith with misplaced edits, most editors will assume good faith when seeing someone's bad edit. We've all been there, and if my earliest edits were interpreted as vandalism I'd have been blocked ages ago! :) I doubt a script exists, or will ever exist, to instruct the MediaWiki software to to take action against a user who vandalises; Cluebot (talk · contribs) is a good bot for this, but there are still false positives which must be taken into account. Plus, if you were thinking about something that would automatically block a user, then that bot would have to have admin access, and I guarantee that such a controversial task will not be allocated to a bot. Nevertheless, Recent Changes and New Pages are watched nearly 24/7 by hundreds of different users, so nearly all the time vandalism will be acted upon and quickly. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Right now, editing for an anon is actually easier than a registered user, because the registered user logs in, while the anon just goes to work. If it was at least a two step process of confirming that you want to edit before letting you edit, accidental edits, at the very least, could be eliminated. There are enough incidents where the IP undoes their vandal edit to suggest that this might be part of what's happening. In that case, even a cancel editing button could help to keep those edits from having to be registered. i would hate for Wikipedia to go down simply because so many resources are spent on the upkeep of what we have, rather than the production of new material. MMetro (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
True, it's an idea to consider. The new users have to go through CATCHA so I suppose that sort of thing is open to consideration. However this talk page is probably not the place to do it. I'd recommend WP:VPT. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Permanent Protection

There is an article which is a hotly contested article, the one on the British Isles. Now I recently protected this for two weeks due to edit warring on the article, and accusations of POV pushing by one side or another. Coupled with editors who have stated they cannot accept the term British Isles on Wikipedia and intent the page removed, to the other extreme of other editors claiming it is a term stating that Britain should be ruling over Ireland (or at least the name claims as such.) Now the protection is due to end in a few days, but as people can see from the talk page, and the protection log this is a hotly contested article with many an edit war. What I want to know is should this page just be protected indefinitely with Admin and Bureaucrat only editing by request to edit a protected page. I fear this may be the only solution for this article as there are too many people on both sides of the political divide insistent on putting their own POV on the article against the verifiable facts. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would fully support handing out blocks to the POV pushers on both sides of the issue; if their block logs start filling up, they become candidates for community bans, which is sometimes the only way to deal with this sort of issue. The arbitrators tend to dismiss similar situations as "content issues", which they decline as a matter of course. I have no problem with indefinite semi-protection, and short-term full protection, but long-term locks tend to stop all editing, as each side uses the talk page to prevent edits with which they disagree, and the end result is a sub-par article with no editing activity and no hope of improving. Better to flush out the problem editors now, and it has been my observation that most PoV pushers (particularly on this topic) don't restrict themselves to a single article, but to a range of articles, and locking one will just cause them to move to another article to pull the same shenanigans. Horologium (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Easier said than done on that page. It all comes down to edit disputes, not out right vandalism on there. Plus many of the editors are editors in good standing outside of that debate. It's, complicated there. Canterbury Tail talk 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Block them for 3RR, edit warring, or tendentious editing. I don't edit that particular group of articles, but I am familiar with some of the usual suspects, as I watch AN, ANI, and RFAr. Looking at the most recent discussion from the talk page, I don't see the names I expected to see, although I do see at least one in the edit history of the article, as well as IP editor from one of the relevant countries. As I mentioned earlier, the lock has stopped editing cold (there have been no edits since it was locked on the 19th) although this article is better than most, with a Good Article badge on it. FWIW, that IP editor should have been blocked for his edits on the talk page, where he launched attacks upon anyone who disagreed with him, (including another Irish editor), using nationalistic cant. We don't need more nationalist idiots infesting the project. Horologium (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So if Semi-Protect is supposed to stop anonymous IP's....

Then how did these two IP guys on June 7th and a recently registered user on June 8th with one edit apiece manage to get thru the semi-protect for The Stig article? I thought semi-protect would stop them?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the semi-protection expired on 6th June. See the Logs for the page. CIreland (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't blame me if the logo is still there, if the lock is there, i'm assuming it's still active.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the padlock actually means nothing, you could go add it on an article yourself if you wanted. It is going to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=protect that shows you the protection status of a page. Prodego talk 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that non-admins could actually look at that page. You can also hack at the api to get something too. Like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=Trumpet&prop=info&inprop=protection tells you that Trumpet is semiprotected, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=Saskatchewan&prop=info&inprop=protection returns nothing (Saskatchewan isn't protected). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 05:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Cena

Can you edit his personal life because he is now currently dating fellow WWE superstar Mickie James, so WWE put them together for a storyline. my sources come from wrestlescoop.com and wrestlenewz.com. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleDCrazy13 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)