Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.67.140.42 (talk) at 22:19, 20 July 2006 (→Current requests for protection: + requests). 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.

    Semi-protection: Anonymous editor keeps adding unsourced information about future event. I investigated and found absolutely no source for edit. Not a particularly serious problem, just annoying that people such as myself must repeatedly revert. --199.67.140.42 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Same problem as above (D (New York City Subway service)). --199.67.140.42 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested. Currently under assault by a ton of anonymous vandals. --Takeel 21:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    William Allen Simpson is trying to confuse the purpose of the category, and I am trying to make it clear. No response frcm him on talk; this is a symptom of a larger problem. --SPUI (T - C) 21:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect: An anonymous user (apparently one) has been edit-warring in violation of 3RR, using several IP addresses. Reporting 3RR wouldn't help: he would just go on to another IP address. --teb728 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Semi-protect

    A great deal of vandalism, both overt and via weasel words, has been pouring in since the start of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Edit warring has also been a problem and full protection might be worth considering as well. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since May 23rd, when this closed, every other edit has been to revert vandalism. As this page is supposedly closed/static, and yet a vandalism magnet, it makes no sense to have it available for editing. Semiprotect, at a minimum, should be considered here. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor claimed that he was the Louisville vandal. Ryūlóng 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has already been Semi-protected by User:Grandmasterka. Cowman109Talk 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting indefinite full protection due to heavy vandalism. I know this sounds crazy, but it's going to end an edit war! There are much better phrases that can be, and now are, used as red link examples (better in the sense that they don't look like potential article subjects). See WP:VPR#End the edit war once and for all: Stop using noun phrases for red link examples. SeahenNeonMerlin 03:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this permanent protection and redirect. I saw this same thing four months ago; a waste of watchlist time. Teke 05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the protection motion as well. --Tristam 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not enough activity to demand protection. Page was occasionally vandalised because the title was used to create intentional red links for use in examples. It is being deprecated as an example and no protection is necessary. --bainer (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The behaviour of User:NeonMerlin in creating this page against consensus on AfD and its talk page, and recreating after deletion seems to be the cause of the activity. --Henrygb 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pokémon Full protection -- edits and revisions are occuring multiple times daily. Some sort of consenus needs to be arrived at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banaticus (talk • contribs)

    • Appears to be a lot of vandalism reverts and some minor edit warring at a section being discussed on the talk page (did not request protection, just making an observation). Ryūlóng 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please full protect, there is an ongoing dispute between several IP users and Andres C..

    • Andres C. was placed on probation regarding his controvertial editions concerning Ecuadorian Peruvian articles.
    • I have avoided so far from intervene in the conflict due to a ban that was imposed to my person [1].
    • A rv to an early undisputed version of the page would be more appropiate.
    • Messhermit 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect from re-creation. Article has been deleted once because it was merely an image, and the post on the talk page by the creator shows that it could technically be a {{db-band}} candidate. When it is speedied for the second time, please protect it from being recreated. Ryūlóng 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is currently on its third recreation. It was first a page for the verb, but now it is just a picture of the "rising metal band's" logo. Ryūlóng 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been Full-protected by User:Ohnoitsjamie. Cowman109Talk 05:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection or Full Protection required. People continue to destroy my Userpage and sub-pages, due to me being bisexual, canadian, a furry, or even no reason given. It frequently spills over to AIM, and a few users (Nathanrdotcom, Naconkantari, and Srose) have backed me up in my attempts to remain civil and keep the vandalism to a minimum.

    Now, i don't know much on semi- or full-protection, but i'd like whichever prohibits people that are not logged in/not registered from editing. I have the users' AIM accounts, but for the next little while, I wish to have some type of protection on my Talk Page, SubPages, and UserPage. My userpages are listed below, and i wish for them to be protected, as well:

    Now, even if my request is declined, i do thank you for taking the time to at least read and consider this. I would like to be notified of either outcome (approved/accepted, or declined/refused), as i'm terribly annoyed of the vandalism and discrimination.

    Thank you, and have a good day. --Raccoon Fox 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusing to protect. You have been adding yourself to categories such as Category:Wikipedia critics and Category:Internet personalities, which are intended to be used only in article space. If you are encyclopedia-worthy, wait for someone to write an article about you and then add the article to those categories. As long as you persist in adding your userpage to these categories, it is likely that you will find that other editors clean up the categories by removing it from them. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So i'm not allowed to be protected becuase i disagree with the status-quo of wikipedia? Wikipedia is nothing more than a place to encourage harassment, intolerance, and discrimination. If you bothered to read ANY history of the pages above, you'd see the vandalism. Likewise with talking to those people i listed. You only cherry-pick the facts you want to believe. --Raccoon Fox 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through your user page history and I don't see any real vandalism. Could you show me a diff? Until then, I agree, no protection is needed. BrokenSegue 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [2] [3] Since i'm the only one willing to put forth an effort to protect my pages, i've brought up that link. --Raccoon Fox 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That vandal was blocked, so I see no need for protection. BrokenSegue 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, as this users is on AOL, and they tend to use open proxies, and their IP addresses constantly change. --Raccoon Fox 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The current vandal on User:Raccoon Fox/About is this IP: 68.69.160.219. It resolves to an Adelphia IP address. I've already sent a detailed abuse report to the ISP. — Nathan (talk) / 06:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this is the right page, but I request that this page be protected from re-creation due to the vanity aspect, and it's reposting after a {{db-bio}}. Ryūlóng 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protecting "Kevin Saiki" from creation would also be helpful, if the author decides to follow WP:MOS. Ryūlóng 07:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been recreated once, speedied both times. IMHO that's not quite enough to salt the earth. My rule of thumb is 3; I have no strong disagreement with anyone who wants to salt, however. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected. Isn't very likely to get notable soon so I don't see any point in leaving it unprotected. But I'm still a n00b admin being bold, so if anyone thinks this is too hasty please correct me. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with KillerChihuahua here; I usually protect after 4 attempts to recreate it, but just go ahead. :) Lectonar 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection for this article. The subject is the Australian Prime Minister and is basically in the same category/status as George W. Bush. The subject has been discussed on the talk page of the article recently and due to the number of reverts of vandalism by new or anonymous users which can be subdued by semi-protection, work on the article is hampered. Ansell 04:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    Semi-protected. Will unprotect after some time. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to a day-long vandalism problem with the addition of claims that the site's operators traffic in child pornography (no sources have been cited to support this claim). I believe semi-protection is warranted due to 1) the seriousness of such a claim and 2) to prevent editors from believing they will run afoul of the 3RR in reverting the vandalism. --G0zer 02:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If a legitimate section may be written, it is marginally true that eBaums world is hosting "pornography" of sorts however. I'll get to work on writing a legitimate section right now. Here is the link to the content in question. [4] Payneos 02:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is unlikely that the consensus of wikipedia or of the courts would describe that page as child pornography. These edits have coincided with an upsurge of comments on YTMND ebaumkiddieporn.ytmnd.com, and even a "legitimate" section would be forum cruft at best. As it stands, the repeated vandalism is as absurd as this edit [5] stating declaratively and without any citation that the Baumans are proud members of NAMBLA. --G0zer 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Let's take this to the talk page of eBaum's World to further discuss it. Payneos 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandal has been blocked for vandalism. Don't see the need to sprotect for now. Please engage on content discussions at the article's talk page and not here. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    08:12, 14 July 2006 Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked The Mad Bomber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 1 week (trolling). Since this user has been blocked, they were reblocked indefinitely and have added a an anti-wikipedia slogan which containes the f-word and blames the Jews, and it is a very angry face! Myrtone 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PS given the highly abusive glovepuppetry, I suggest a report sent to the relevant ISP about cutting the internet connection of the user's ip adress (I think this users behaviour is bad enough to be banned from the internet).
    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Voice-of-All 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    VoA, what exactly are edit summarys and talkpages got to do with it? Myrtone 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing, just me forget to modify a template response; fixed.Voice-of-All 20:05, 19 July 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.

    Request unprotection. Both users recently in an edit war have agreed to informal mediation. I've printed out and compared two versions of the page, and think I can help resolve this. Anthony Krupp 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with template

    This template should be semi-protected, or unprotected, because there are some problems with it. The template is in many cases used for articles about a head of state, or head of government (prime minister).

    Problems arise when

    • a head of state/PM serves more than two terms of office, or broken terms of office (i.e. a gap between both periods in office);
    • it is compulsory to enter a birth date - the template formatting will not continue to work unless the birth date is displayed, and entered.

    I feel these should be changed as a matter of urgency. The template should be edited to allow for a third term of office, or a separate position/period in office, without disrupting formatting. This is often the case in many countries outside of the United States.

    Also, it should not be compulsory to add a date of birth - for the simple reason that it disrupts the formatting, unless it is entered. Some members may be unsure, or unaware of this information, and this is another reason why it should be left blank, if desired.

    I recently changed the Politician infobox template, to allow a third term of office, but unfortunately whilst this one is more easily adapted to heads of state/government, the formatting is more consistent [the 'job title' goes in bold above the rest of the data], and layout generally better, the template is fully protected. It should be unprotected/semi-protected. (RM21 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]


    The best House-mate on BB so far. Needs her own page.

    No she doesn't. She is not notable. — FireFox 17:46, 19 July '06

    Semi-protection is overboard for this article. Sure it gets vandalized, but only once or so a day. Nothing a simple revert can't fix. Please unprotect it. Ardenn 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The vast majority of edits on the article over the past week or so have either been vandalism or reverts. Please leave the semi-protection in place for at least a day or two to try to discourage the vandal(s?). Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that User Ardenn has a conflict of interest in that his user page states that he is a member of the Green Party and is a supporter of another candidate. --Atrian 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    GrantNeufeld is President of the Green Party of Alberta, he has a conflict as well. That aside, it has nothing to do with this. This article simply doesn't get vandalized often enough to warrent semi-protection. Other articles have been denied it for more. Ardenn 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A non pov article that provides 100% historical accuracy needs to replace the current pro-reparations pov article that has been locked.

    So, can it be unprotected, please? Ardenn 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected, with a close eye on IP edits to watch for vandalism -- Samir धर्म 06:25, 19 July 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

    Request semi-protect

    One or multiple users in multiple IP blocks have almost daily edited the information in the chart present on this page. These edits seem to be imaginary in nature, in that the user enters driver names and countries of origin which are 99% unlikely to ever even show up in this sport, assuming the people added even exist. The names added with every edit also appear to be different each time, making it likely that they're completely made up.

    Although their edits are able to be quickly reverted, this person's IP address apparently changes everytime they log on, since every edit is from a slightly different IP, yet always uses the same style of names and countries in their edits. Therefore is is nearly impossible to properly ban this user since they do not have a consistant, constant IP address, nor is it possible to address them through a talk page for the same reasons since by time the vandalism is noticed, they've logged off and wont ever see that talk page.

    Therefore a semi-protect is the only way to stop this vandalism at the moment, hopefully if this user realizes that they are unable to do this anymore they might stop and/or register.

    Sorry if that was long-winded.

    The359 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Lectonar 08:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting Unprotection. Vandalism by the exclusion of opposing views by pro-reparation activists --History Student 08:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Voice-of-All 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The article should be unprotected. The newly added information was cited. The article in its current form is pro-reparations pov lacking any balance. --

    Britney Spears (edit|talk|links|history|logs) Unprotection request, Britney Spears is not an academy award nominated person. — Rogeliocm00, 21 July '06


    Under attack by AOL IPs, sprotect before it escalates--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 07:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection Requesting temporary full protection of this section due to edit warring while mediation is in progress. Anonymous and/or unknown editor keeps reverting the listings on a daily bases as well as placing derogatory remarks on the talk page, thanks. Lookingheart 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[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 07:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please full protect, due to edit wars. --Iantresman 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect~. Constant POV editing and vandalisation of this article make it hard to revert acts of vandalism and keep this article at a certain level. See the history of this article for details. Mieciu K 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Well watched, linked to the main page, and only a 1 : 0.18 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV). Voice-of-All 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protcect.under attack.again.by the stupid haters.the non-vandalism lasted,what,1 day?SNAPE KILLS A FLY HAHAHAH PWNED! 05:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection requested due to a user with a rotating IP circumventing blocks to participate in a revert war against general consensus - semi-protection will help encourage the user to get an account, as well. Cowman109Talk 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Theresa knott. Cowman109Talk 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection requested. There is an edit war between SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and William_Allen_Simpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have asked both to cool it. SPUI has refused to stop edit warring, and refused my offer to protect the article, arguing that "I'd rather it be available for editing by all - and protection on William's version would be much worse than an edit war." [6]. I still think that protection would be the best way to force both parties to discuss this matter reasonably and reach consensus, but I don't think it would be appropriate, at this stage, for me to protect it. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like they have 3RR'd out for now, but protection seems in order to prevent another edit war. BrokenSegue 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I respectfully request semi-protection for this article. Editors appear to blindly revert edits for no obvious reason. --User:book-worm --Book-worm 15:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) As a new user, you may not realize that semiprotecting it would only block new and unregistered users from editing it (ie you). (2) I think the other editors monitoring that article are reasonably on top of the unreferenced changes you are trying to introduce. Protection denied. Syrthiss 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request full protection for this article. It has been subjected to an editing war during the last few weeks that has ruined what was previously a balanced, if somewhat out of date, account. This editing war is continuing today, and appears to be led by users unable to make desired changes to the Spanish version. A cool-off period is needed - I am willing to carry out a major edit in a few weeks time. --Southofwatford 09:57, 19 July 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 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I respectfully request semi-protection for this article. It has been subjected to repeated vandelism by a non-registered user. Unfounded lies and even unflattering references to the subject's mother have been posted. --617USA 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism reverted and article semiprotected. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Been protected since June 23. Discussion goes away from the original reason for protection and becomes less and less. At least two admins had tended to unprotect it. But due to no requests from editors, no action is done yet. Now I request to unprotect it. Thanks. Fnhddzs 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Voice-of-All 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request full-protection for this article. A disruptive editor, user:Ste4k, has removed the majority of the article, despite current discussions on the talk page. There have been previous edit wars on this article, and the removals do not appear to have been made in good faith. -Will Beback 04:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So thousands of non admins should be locked away jsut a single user can be kept away? -- Drini 07:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request full-protection for this article as the person in this article is a minor (14 years of age) who is attracting continuos edits, full page blanking, of what could only be described as a serious pedohiliac nature. It seems there is a group at the infamous ytmnd.com forum having a go at her entry as viewable here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julianna_Rose_Mauriello&action=history

    I stuck on a protected tag hoping it will slow them down, but I have doubts. Please at least protect this page full for a few weeks to curb the kids.

    All of the vandalism seems to come from IP edits, so I have semi-protected it for now. -- Avi 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=64931724"