Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user Sloane (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 5 September 2006 (→{{la|Steven E. Jones}}). 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.

    Page was unprotected today, upon which all criticism of the person was removed. There was no consensus for this and attempts to restore the criticism are immediately reverted. Request protection again until consensus can be reached. --Peephole 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semiprotection. See hitory, last 24 hours has been subject to multiple attacks by different ips. - Mike Beckham 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection for a short time. Due to her husband's death, several editors have discussed on the talk page and come to the agreement that the page should be semi-protected for several days or so so as to maintain the integrity of the page, as it has suffered quite a bit of vandalism due to her husband's death yesterday morning. Michael 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected. Husband's page had also been sprotected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ERcheck (talk • contribs) .

    Page is being vandalized increasingly by the same person screaming and using different IPs all along. Unsourced allegations are being made to support a claim which is fraudulent and has been proven so (see quotations). I along with User:Cardinal Newman request semi-protection, that is: only registered users can edit.Smith2006 10:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for now, considering constant disruption. I'll keep an eye out, as well. Yanksox 11:28, 5 September 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 has been protected because of a dispute over a single paragraph which is derogatory about Dr. Jones, who currently teaches physics at BYU and is featured in media worldwide, such as the NYTimes this weekend, because of his views on 9/11. Yet, the offending paragraph remains on his page in the 'protected' version. The person who originally posted the offending paragraph has admitted that it made Jones look bad. The dispute involves the fact that his detractors won't allow the paragraph to be located in the criticism section. I request that regardless of what happens with page protection, the paragraph should be removed or at the very least, moved to the criticism section. bov

    A poll in place shows that so far all who have commented want the page unproctected and returned to its previous state. I would suggest that a note or something be put on the page that all future changes, other than minor edits, First be floated on the Talk page for comment and discussion and then only be made if a consensus exists or a significant majority exists and a 2nd editor make the proposed change. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In all fairness, if the page was to be protected, it should have been protected BEFORE FCYTravis began an "edit war." The poll continues and we should see what else develops.DPetersontalk 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    The article was protected over a month ago due to edits in the "Roster" section that were either unconfirmed or vandalism. With the official roster announced today, hopefully there should be no need for the semi-protection now. Thanks. --Oakster (Talk) 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Protection now at one month. It would be nice to get working on this again, keeping WP:EL, WP:BLP, etc. in mind. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier, Serebii.net was hacked, and redirected to this page. The website's domain is now back to normal, and edits have most likely ended. If the problem continues, which I doubt though, then it is perfectly fine to continue protection. Setherex 04:31, 5 September 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.

    Drishtipat's London branch has been criticised for the composition of it's membership http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2006/07/27/monica-ali/. The majority of British Bangladeshi's originate from Sylhet Division in Bangladesh and are keenly interested in the human and economic rights in their region. Drishtipat's national Dhaka-centric focus has thus been criticised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.20.118 (talk • contribs) .

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drishtipat" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habz (talk • contribs)

    Drishtipat is currently semiprotected from editing. If you register an account and wait a few days, you'll be able to edit it. (It's only locked against anonymous and very new editors.) Also, in the future, please format your requests correctly; as it stands, you're requesting an edit to a user talk page that doesn't exist. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the talk page, there are two episodes that are mix-up and we need to add episode for the new season of Pokémon.

    Where are the proposed changes? Is there agreement?Voice-of-All 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Where's episode 468 and 469? The titles were released for 469 by Serebii. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Request semiprotection. This page is vandalized so much, it is actually quite surprising. Today alone I saw two edits made; in one they said they tasted good, and they talked about condoms in another edit. Obviously some guests and new members cannot be mature about the word "Banana". I am requesting Semi-Protection so that members who made it past a good 4 days will be allowed to edit, as they can be trusted more then a newly registered member, or a guest. Alan 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request full protection. Ongoing edit war, with no signs of abatting. Would have protected myself, but I would prefer another editor does this, as I have been participating in an ArbCom case about the subject, and may be innapropriate for me to intervene. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:14, 4 September 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 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection of Hildanknight's user space.

    The conflict on the MapleStory article resulted in my user page getting vandalized. My talk page has also been attacked by a troll rotating IPs.

    There's no reason why anonymous users should be allowed to edit my userspace. Due a history of anons abusing their privileges of editing my userspace, I request my entire userspace be semi-protected. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

    See WP:SEMI, as per this commentAnsell 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection. Continued unending block evasion using multiple socks and proxies to push graffitti and other content that violates concensus onto the article. Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_vandalism states : Where an article is drawing vandalism from multiple sources, making blocking ineffective, page protection should be used. Eskog usually deals with this, but he's not here.--Crossmr 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Yanksox 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    50 edits in the last week, of which only about 2 were not related to either damaging the article or repairing that damage? Exactly what do you consider enough activity? -Crossmr 03:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semiprotection. This page was protected last time I saw it, but today I see that on 8/8/2006 Voice of All unprotected it saying Unprotected Beverly Hills High School: Page protected for a while; hopefully protection is no longer necessary.)

    Unfortunatly, protection is still needed as the same vandal was back by 8/11/2006 using multiple IP addresses and sockpuppets. He named a recent sock puppet as "Karmac died of aids." This vandal is an emotionally immature person who can't stop his vandalisms, which usually contain personal insults, racist remarks, and sometimes pornography. As you can see from the history page of BHHS his vandalisms have been reverted over and over since the block was lifted, usually by somebody other than myself. Many of his sock puppets have been banned forever from wikipedia, but he just keeps signing on with a new ip address or sock puppet. Thanks for your help. Karmak 02:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected Yanksox 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection This vandal has actually vandalized my talk page more than my user page, and he has vandalized my user page a lot! Once again, this same immature person keeps using sock puppets and ip addresses. He has been reverted countless times, usually by someone other than myself. Once again, I thank you for your help! Karmak 02:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're userpage? It hasn't been edited in a while, no need for protection, unless I'm misunderstanding this. Yanksox 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the help on the BHHS article. But whenever something happens on the BHHS page the vandal will return to my user page. But I guess I can request it a day or so after he does vandalism my user page. I haven't edited anything in a while so he has left me alone. He seems to think I died, considering that another one of his sock puppets is "Don't be a homo and die like Karmac" or something like that. He has called me both a Jew and a Nazi. He can't resist my user page...

    Karmak 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hrm, this is may be more of an issue for WP:AN/I or WP:RFCU. Yanksox 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to large amounts of vandalism (see [6]). —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting to version : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy&oldid=73600469 would represent the consensus of many previous editors. I would also suggest a poll to that effect and will start that on the talk page. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this. JonesRDtalk 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, if the page was to be protected, it should have been protected with the version in place before FCYTravis began the "edit war" with continued reverts. DPetersontalk 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. Look, this page will be unprotected anyway within a few days if there is no more or little constructive talk on the talk page. At the moment, you are being mildly disruptive by repeatedly coming to this page with nuermous requests. Discuss the issue with FCYT and see if you can merge the two versions of the page in some way, rather than reverting between the two. You all have the purpose of creating a better article - so there is no need for there to be so much conflict. --Robdurbar 21:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. I have tried to talk with him and suggested the poll and that no changes be made until discussed on the talk page of the article in question, but he has not agreed to do so. In the same vein, he has refused to agree to mediation, althougth I and at least one or two other editors have agreed to participate in mediation and I certainly would agree to abide by the advice and recommendations of the mediator. DPetersontalk 02:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Heh, just when the article unlocks new accounts and anons pop out.--MarshallBagramyan 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sprotected, yet again. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      Fully protected —Xyrael / 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm extremely confused by this. The page has barely been touched, and the talk page hasn't been used at all. Why has full protection been employed here? -/- Warren 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Genre is of heavy debate, and mediation via WP:Mediation_Cabal is underway. I asked that genre be frozen until peer review can be made, but this is currently being ignored by many Anon IP. This genre war has picked up signifigently in last 12 hours. Hackajar 06:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —Xyrael / 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection after the protection had been removed, the article was subjected to pages of anonymous vandalism DemosDemon (Talk - contrib) 12:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just report them to WP:AIV as you see them. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection because the page has been subject of blanking since a while... I have been reverting his edits since this morning. --Deenoe 14:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough recent activity??? Are you blind? An hour ago you don't call this recent? --Deenoe 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even an hour actually... only 30 minutes ago. --Deenoe 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protected Sorry. Must have been looking at the wrong history page. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're all forgiven :) --Deenoe 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I probably shouldn't have done that (it's my first day as admin). You really should be WP:ARV the IP vandals to WP:AIV and get them banned as soon as they appear. Semi-protection should only be used when there's A LOT of activity. Could someone else review this semi for me and give me a few pointers on how little activity isn't worth it? Thanks,  Netsnipe  ►  15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    There was an edit war over the size of a laundry list in the article, between several anons who wanted a long list and several editors who wanted a short or no list. |Ensuing discussion on the talk page is unanimously in support of a much smaller or disappeared list. There's no reason to keep this page protected at this point, although semi-protection might be a good idea to avoid sockpuppeting. Nandesuka 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected Considering that there is some discussion, I'm unprotecting, assuming that everyone can agree on this matter now. Yanksox 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    A poll in place shows that so far all who have commented want the page unproctected and returned to its previous state. I would suggest that a note or something be put on the page that all future changes, other than minor edits, First be floated on the Talk page for comment and discussion and then only be made if a consensus exists or a significant majority exists and a 2nd editor make the proposed change. JonesRDtalk 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A poll of three people, all of whom are involved in revert-warring unsourced and original research allegations into an article? FCYTravis 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, if the page was to be protected, it should have been protected BEFORE FCYTravis began an "edit war." The poll continues and we should see what else develops. In addition, the personal attacks on other editors by lumping them all together in "revert-waring unsourced..." is not conducive to building consensus. Just because editors disagree with FCYTravis, who began the edit war, does not make them wrong. DPetersontalk 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    For the love of god, i completely agree. And hurry up with it! It's starting to get insane. dposse 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I disagree, it's been semi-protected by Mark. Yanksox 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And then it was unprotected[7]. Yanksox 15:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Declined It is a current event linked to the main page, and as such should not be protected. Cowman109Talk 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wheel-warring at its finest, eh. -/- Warren 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined?? are you kidding me - this is why we get bad press - like on the death of former Enron president Kenneth Lay - the good and honest editors can not do a good job of copyediting and reporting the information becaue they spend too much time reverting random vandalism - not {{sprotect}}'ing this article wastes wikipedia resources and devalues the time of good editors. --Trödel 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to Zzyzx11 for sprotect'ing - agree with comment below and from Zzyzx11 that it should be short term 15-30 min to clean up article and copyedit --Trödel 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you serious? Have you even looked at the history? This page is being vandalised every second. I can't do my work on it because of edit conflicts when vandals want to post things like "His last words were, "Crikey, me chest!!!!!""[8] Come on, leave the page protected! dposse 15:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been protected and unprotected many times - if anything protection should be for only serious cases of vandalism of pages that are linked to the main page, and there seem to be enough people available to revert it anyway (it is also used when people are otherwise unable to keep up with the reverting, but that seems to be done fine). And for the record, there have been many positive edits by IPs on that page as well - not all of them are vandalism. If someone would like to protect this, it should only be for 15 minuets at the most, but that's been done and tried again :) Cowman109Talk 15:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh - it is linked to from the main page - and at least one person just quit trying to police it for vandalism and now there will be two --Trödel 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, it's been semi-protected to clean up vandalism that was apparently missed (which is what it should be used for in these cases, not to keep out all anon IPs permanently). So, ignore my above statement saying it was too hard to revert all of it :). Though this is indeed an interesting case.. Cowman109Talk 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To put things in perspective, the first person to make mention of Steve Irwin's death was indeed an IP address. Cowman109Talk 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Full protection (the article is currently semi protected), for a some of hours, maybe half a day, until this settles down, due edit war. Apparently someone called Steve Irwin died due a stingray attack, and several users are wanting to add that information to the article, while others (me included), don't agree. IPs were driven away by semi protecting the article, but now the war is between users. This will force people to discuss in the talk page to reach consensus. -- ReyBrujo 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As the page has been linked from the main page, I am retiring my petition to have this article protected. -- ReyBrujo 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a content dispute. Whether the information is in the article or not is not vandalism. Ansell 05:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    Generally, Full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. I believe we need full protection to prompt a discussion and preventing people from breaking the three revert rule. -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you may not know the status of Steve Irwin with relation to his extensive work with animals, as such your statement about "someone" may be misguided. Ansell 05:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    I am more interested in stopping the edit war than knowing about this person's life. -- ReyBrujo 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I am not part of the edit war. And the speed with which a consensus is developing on the talk page, in the direction of having it there, means that maybe you were focusing on backing up a few established editors without knowing the full reasons why so many people feel that a sentence refering to the recent incident is relevant. Keep in mind the WP:3RR provisions are fully liable in content dispute situations. Ansell 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I was rather trying to make sure that things were being done for the right reasons. Assume good faith doesn't mean agree with everything, and hence I was making sure that this wasn't being fully protected, as it has been linked from the main page since when you first put it up here, and we have survived with only temporary/on-off semi-protection since. Ansell 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

      Declined This page is on the main page, and disputes like this could be solved through talking it out, not fighting over it. This issue is fresh off the presh, and protection is most of the time not what the doctor ordered. There is no evidence of a full fledged edit war needing protection. Yank<;/font>sox 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    I really do think this page should be protected now. Check out the [9] of the article. After Steve Irwin was semi-protected, this article was the target of many vandals as seen in the article's history. I am requesting it for it to be re-considered to be semi-protected. --Nishkid64 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_reports#Samir_Kuntar_vandal_.28Richard100.29 Abuse Reports for reasoning and more information. Denied from AR because an sprotect hasn't been tried! HawkerTyphoon 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the page was sprotected for a while, sometime after I filed that abuse report. It has been unprotected since, and only vandalized once by the same user. Ryūlóng 11:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's alright then. If he seems to have stopped, no worries. If it picks up again, re-add him at Abuse Reporting and We'll try something, but there might not be much we can do, what with there being very few helpers from that area... HawkerTyphoon 20:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Declined Protection is not necessary right now, and we can handle a situation with ease if it's one user. Yanksox 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=73933365"