Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VoABot (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 25 June 2006 (BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. [PR: 1 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 0]). 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 protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    [1] Request full protection for just the "External Links, ID Perspectives" section.

    Request first restoring the two links I added. See discussion. There have been four reverts already today for a good faith effort to provide two links to major sites giving minority positions. Ask for a quieting down over this edit war. See discussion page.DLH 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC) restored this request after an overwrite.VoABot 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Add ====THE ARTICLE NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)====as the request title

                                1. Please only edit below this line.###############-->

    Semi-protection - Repeated vandalism of closed mediation case. Ideogram 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [2] Request full protection for just the "External Links, ID Perspectives" section. There have been four reverts already today for a good faith effort to provide two links to major sites giving minority positions. Ask for a quieting down over this edit war. See discussion page.DLH 18:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Second request. The page is still being vandalized by nameless sock puppets who are continually removing an appropriate link they personally don't like. This has been going on for days. My last request was rejected due to not enough activity. What exactly constitutes enough activity? Jinxmchue 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    The article was protected because of a heated edit war. It seems that things have cooled down now. Han-Kwang 11:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This template is protected for no apparent reason; it has hardly any edit history, no warring, no explanation for the protection on the talk page, isn't transcluded on a large number of pages so editing wouldn't cause any collateral damage. I can only assume that the admin who protected it assumed that it should be protected as it pertains to the protection system, but this is not the case. BigBlueFish 09:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason to edit it other than just to make it look more wiki.Voice-of-All 20:27, 24 June 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.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Full protection - This user made a threat to "report" those who restore the messages previously on his user talk page - a violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, among other policies. Please teach this user that he does not have full control over his user talk page. 69.117.4.132 16:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to deny this request. Maybe he's just being annoyed that people insist on restoring messages that he's read already? In the removed messages, I don't see anything worse than an accusation of sockpuppetry and a few image deletion warnings. No explicit vandalism warnings or similar messages. Kimchi.sg 17:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Also,

    I'm requesting full protection for all of these articles as there is a back and forth edit war taking place baced on whether or not the preceeded by field should be based on continuity or production order. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All protected for edit war and notice posted at Talk:Superman Returns#Protected. -- Samir धर्म 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just zis Guy you know? have deleted content and made unauthorized changes to my user page. After this he protected the page so I cannot undo his changes. I see this as a clear violation of user page guidelines. I therefore request that the page should be unprotected. --Rdos 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Still under discussion on the user talk page. I've reviewed deleted edits and see this as a clear example of what a user page is WP:NOT. I've not unprotected but am leaving the request up -- Samir धर्म 08:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be a little more specific? --Rdos 08:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. You shouldn't use a user page for a treatise on why autism is related to cross-breeding with Neanderthals. Bring it up at WP:ANI if you want further intervention -- Samir धर्म 09:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that there is no such thing as an "unauthorized change" to a Wikipedia page. I asked nicely, then I asked firmly, then I removed the offending content, and you still would't take the hint. This is a personal essay which is offensive to some editors and has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Take it to your own website. I've not stopped you including the link to that. Just zis Guy you know? 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned this issue is no longer about whatever the stuff belongs on my userpage or not. It is your conduct as an admin that is turning me off. --Rdos 17:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regrettably, admins don't get told off for enforcing policy, considering it's kind of their job. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 08:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Main Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    unprotect --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied, the Main Page is permanently protected; it has very high visibility, and would be a constant vandalism target. See WP:PPP Prodego talk 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been left untouched ever since the semi-protection a week ago. I think it's about time to remove the semi-protection now and hope the anon vandalism doesn't start again. Thanks. --Oakster (Talk) 16:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection because this page is vandalized (nearly) daily by anonymous users. Thanks: FroS 23:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 01:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection because there is still vandalism and this is the second request for protection please can some protection be added.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection because of recurring vandalism, suspected to be from a banned user seeking to avoid his block. The constant reversions from unregistered and suspicious new accounts are stopping work from progressing despite there being a number of qualified people wanting to move it forward. Many thanks. --PaulWicks 21:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The dispute has been resolved for now. However, I still request semi-protection to stop IP addresses from making edits, considering they most likely have no knowledge of the debate that took place on the talk page, and will be tempted to continue changing the genres, which by the way, have been decided upon as Emo and Alternative rock. Thanks. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 06:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not quite yet EMC, if it's okay. If there's no more discussion on the talk page in the next 24-48 hours, I'll unprotect it. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection because of recurring severe vandalism as Today's featured article. Nick Mks 10:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Today's featured article is never protected. It is always heavily vandalised. It's a vital policy... there's hardly any point in showing off our best articles if they don't appear open, and 24 hours' close patrolling of the article isn't much to ask for considering so many good Wikipedians will also be attracted to the article today. BigBlueFish 11:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point, but it could then at least be semi-protected. Most of the vandalism comes from anonymous IPs, while these generally do not contribute much to a featured article. Nick Mks 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as good edits from anon IPs are made and the vandalism rate is low (not more than 10 vandalism edits / hour), the FA does not need semi-protection. Kimchi.sg 12:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotect - no discussion for some time on talk pages. Related articles have been unprotected. fullsome prison 16:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected hopefully the edit warring has ceased. Kimchi.sg 08:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection - Is under constant attack by the vandal CapnCrack, and semi-protection didn't help. Fully protecting it for a while will likely cause this moron to go away.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity on the page to justify protection. The last edit was made on June 3. Just watchlist the page and revert any vandalism. Kimchi.sg 12:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - Once again, {{deletedpage}} without protection means nothing. 69.117.4.132 01:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected by Voice of All. Kimchi.sg 02:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection requested. A dynamic AOL IP keeps vandalizing Ideogram's userpage. Reporting the user at AIV would be futile as they make one edit and then wait for the IP to change. Usually only about one or two edits of the userpage per day, but hurtful and offensive nonetheless. Cowman109Talk 20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to recurring userpage vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to make a request for some sort of mediation/page protection at the FC Barcelona article. The issue is basicly about article size. In order to keep the article within Wikipedia guidelines on length, several other articles have been created and are linked together in Category:FC Barcelona. However an anonymous editor has ignored my suggestions to add contributions to other articles rather then the main article. He has persistently overloaded the page with info that is included in other articles and refuses to engage in any debate or log-in. --Djln --Djln 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 02:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect - This page is in a content dispute that I am currently trying to mediate as part of the mediation cabal. Currenly the article has undergone many edits, but each has been reverted by other parties... essentially the article is in the same condition as it was last week. I want to focus attention to the talk page. Agian thanks Eagle talk 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=60535719"