Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 13:03, 24 January 2008 (→{{la|List of Forgotten Realms characters}}). 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.

    --Jack Merridew 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, constant level of vandalism. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protect. Lots of IP Vandalism to names, related to current Societe General scandal. Bazzargh (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. They do not read the sources and add fake info such as inflated or even non-existent sales figures. Kraft. (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Too many IP vandalism in past 3 days..Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Yahel Guhan 06:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection; slow-motion edit-war over long-standing dispute. -- tariqabjotu 05:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now. The history gives no clear evidence for the edit war, and talk page shows what could be seen as a harmonious editing environment among editors. - PeaceNT (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Undoing cited information in personal life section. MgTurtle (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect to stop banned sockpuppeteer User:Ekajati or anonymous allies using Wikipedia for social engineering. I left the article alone for a while even after the sockpuppet banning, while the article provoked real-world criticism. But I proposed changes starting on November 1, 2007. Anonymous user(s) claimed I made no discussion and has now reverted 4 times, as other named users object to the Ekajati version. Dan (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article linked by Dan says nothing of Wikipedia. It is in fact not a comment on the Wikipedia article, but rather one example of ongoing differences of opinion between Crowleyan (sometimes called Aleisterian) followers of Thelema and non-Crowleyan (called Rabelaisian or pre-Crowleyan) followers of Thelema. It is in fact evidence of just the distinction Dan wishes to remove from the article. 194.187.213.89 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the distinction entered history after it appeared on Wikipedia, just as Ekajati intended. Dan (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply not true. Tim Maroney called himself a Rabelaisian Thelemite in 1996. [1], [2]. The term has been in use in the Thelemic community for as long as I can remember. An article about Rabelasian Thelema appeared in the journal Behutet in 2004. [3] You may want to note that even that article was written and published well before the term was added to the Wikipedia article. Here's the last version before the Autumn Equinox of 2004. [4]. You seem ignorant of the culture you are trying to write about. 209.85.6.23 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (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.

    Frontpage. -- Kendrick7talk 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is not edit-protected. Move-protection seems reasonable. Nakon 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. east.718 at 05:24, January 24, 2008

    I want to know why this page was protected. If it was because of a lack of sourced cites, not to worry. I can provide them to you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page was deleted and salted per this discussion Nakon 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know why this page was protected. But I would like to create an informative page about this tequila brand. The first brand to offer flavor-infused tequilas. I will take care of it, and I will do my best to maintain everything consistent with the current Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Ubzy 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Try writing it in a user subpage first and then heading here or to WP:AN to show us after you're done. bibliomaniac15 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see a reason why the article should not be created, as it is a valuable part of the band's history and people should know about the album. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (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.

    I'd like to request that someone remove the M1 Abrams message at the top, WP:DENY. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A rather unorthodox request. An arbitrator has protected this page, but left a conditional in her edit summary. For details, see here. The current "pp-dispute" tag at the top of the talk page tells people to come here to request unprotection. What I would like is for an uninvolved administrator to change that link (you may need to substitute the template) to point to User talk:FloNight#Agreement regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision instead. This will allow any uninvolved editors passing by, and unaware of the situation, to go to the right place to ask for page unprotection. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this is the right place for this request, but nowhere else seems as appropriate. I'd like to request that Medicine Show be (re?)created as a redirect to Medicine show, but not (necessarily) unprotected. Note also the existence of Medicine Show (album). I found the SALT tag when looking for the Big Audio Dynamite single, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Mr.Z-man 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect. Persistent juvenile IP vandalism from various locales.--Samiharris (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk1<sEditing Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediapan style="color:#800000">7 05:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    semi-protect The last semi-prot expired on the 23rd, and it's already had four IP vandalisms. This happens constantly. Could we get some indefinite semi-protection, please? – Scartol • Tok 01:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sitting on this one for a few hours. east.718 at 02:40, January 24, 2008
    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    'semi-protect. I feel that it would be a positive pre-emptive move to semi-protect this page. Since the return of Bubba the Love Sponge to terrestrial radio in the Tampa market, fans of his show have been vandalizing several MJ Morning Show sites. In order to maintain the integrity of the page here on Wikipedia, I would like to see this article semi-protected. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined We do not protect pre-emptively. bibliomaniac15 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think this is a mistake. Hopefully I'm proven wrong, though. Thanks for considering it, however.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect, persistent IP vandalism.--The Dominator (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, content dispute. east.718 at 02:38, January 24, 2008
    I am dissapointed in your assessment, it is not a content dispute, this user IP refuses to cooperate, refuses to discuss and adds false information, also adding comments like "get a life", and "fuck you", and thing of the sort when I prompt him/her to enter discussion, it's not content dispute since it has been factually proven that the IP is worng and he/she has been told multiple times. The same thing happened on the article Czech Republic.--The Dominator (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Vandalism, Fresh from semi protection, IPs are back at it. It's the same guy, at different IPs for the same provider (Hughes). Whatever you can do would be appreciated....Gladys J Cortez 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for some time. east.718 at 02:39, January 24, 2008

    Without any sources Bejnar has been editing the template. For example he has changed "Pashtun Rule" to Local Rule". The Hotakis and the Durranis were foriegn tribes which settled in Modern Afghanistan in the 18th century. For example, Ahmad Shah Durrani the founder of the Durrani Dynasty was born in Multan Panjab and wasnt a local.--Anoshirawan 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Kingturtle. east.718 at 02:45, January 24, 2008

    Move protected since a move war in December. Discussion has been ongoing and seems to favor the current title. It's true that one editor doesn't seem to accept the results, but it wouldn't be right to keep the page protected because one editor won't compromise. I've asked said user not to move war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected in deference to you. east.718 at 02:46, January 24, 2008


    protect - A few users have registered and are repeatedly adding clear NPOV violoations, despite warnings. Need a protection to hopefully distract them for a while - the talk page is being ignored too. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected · AndonicO Hail! 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. anonymous IP vandalism specifically from 68.109.68.240. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Content dispute. east.718 at 01:37, January 24, 2008

    Semi-protect - Original research by the editor Fairseeder. He wants at any cost to make a top 50 ranking of countries with higher index of development so this way he is able to include some countries he likes. I find pretty biased to make this after the consensus to have only a top 30 ranking practically since the beginning of the article. (kardrak) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Content dispute. east.718 at 01:38, January 24, 2008


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism - constant insertion of spam and personal attacks. Quartet 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Jmlk17 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also semi. Jmlk17 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Same as above (from same IP). Quartet 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Protect. Repeated vandalism by editors on one side of the ongoing episode edit wars. The repeated contention deletion is done simply out of site. The subject of the article is reliably sourced as having 3 Emmy nominations, which even the deleters like User:Kww have acknowledged elsewhere satisfies the strictest applicable (and contested as too strict) notability guideline. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Four minutes after this was declined, the page was vandalized again. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I don't know of an instance of recent vandalism to this page. VivianDarkbloom is edit-warring, however, refusing to leave an unsuitable article as a redirect or to repair it before restoring it.Kww (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to step on my colleague's toes and fully protect this because of the long-term edit war with no edit in sight. east.718 at 23:44, January 23, 2008

    semi-protect. There is a lot of IP vandalism. Not just now, but this is consistent over the last two years. Removed another instance just now. The vandalism doesnt happen every day, but almost every month. I have the page on my watchlist just for that very reason. Thanks in advance. Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - rarely vandalized, reverted quickly. east.718 at 23:42, January 23, 2008
    Thanks, this really helps. Maybe it is quickly reverted because some people are watching the page just to prevent the vandalism. Time invested in one page results in time not invested in other pages. Just my 2 cents, Van der Hoorn (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect-Repeated vandalism by non-registered users. There was constant reversion to a vandalized version of the articleWai Hong (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=186579769"