Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

"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.

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 protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Current requests for protection

Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection is requested due to excessive inaccuracies in editing and vandalism. The reverted edits we made from the IP address 208.47.88.133 back to the one made by administrator Mark Gallagher should be the last one. Thank You. -GODDESSY

It doesn't seem like vandalism to me. Please see Wikipedia:vandalism. If there are inaccuracies that is a matter for the talk page. I see no reason to protect the page. --Fire Star 17:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Secret Society of Super Villains members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Referred from a Mediation Cabal case, a changing AOL IP has been adding roman numerals to this page, while the WikiProject Comics community has agreed to not use roman numerals at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(comics)#Roman Numerals. As blocking the IP for 3RR would likely only last for a few hours before the IP changes again, also possibly damaging other users of AOL, I came here to request temporary Semi-page protection. Hopefully this can also make the user create an account, making them easier to contact and in the end settling the issue. Cowman109^Talk 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to mediation case, and some vandalism. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Article has been repeatedly vandalised by mostly anon users. Vandalised over 20 times in past two days. Lipzydude 22:34, 28 April 2006

This article has already been semi-protected it seems. Cowman109^Talk 14:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Already semi-protected by Voice of All a little while back. Kimchi.sg | talk 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus-Myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection requested please. There is an edit war going on with user A.J.A trying to make sweeping changes with very minimal comments on the talk page (see Talk:Jesus-Myth#The Removed Material). We need the page protected to force discussions on the talk page. Thanks Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made and am willing to continue making the case for the changes. If I had a comment that wasn't telling me to discuss it first, it might be easier to actually hold a discussion. A.J.A. 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the above - this was posted on the talk page [1] - please protect the article so he is forced to be patient. and discuss Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like enough activity for a protect. Try to talk things out instead, and if you must, make use of WP:AN/3RR. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 10:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Children of Bodom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection requested. There has been an ongoing edit war over the genre of this band, and it has resulted in Leyasu violating their 1RR (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu and his recent message on my talk page) several times. Several of the parties involved in the Children of Bodom dispute refer to changing the genre to anything but their preferred description as "vandalism". Since I was involved in the arb case, I'd prefer not to protect the page myself due to any possible conflicts of interest. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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^T|@|ESP 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

User:Bonaparte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protected due to vandalism awhile back, the vandal is probably gone by now. —Khoikhoi 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nintendo refers to the Wii console as "Wii" as Apple refers to the iPod DAP as "iPod". They do not refer to them as objects, rather people.

Un-protected. Its been a long enough while. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Still move protected Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 19:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hanging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has been sprotected for 12 days, last vandalism was 2 days ago but article has been totally reorganised since then. The contested "Singapore" section has been merged with other countries, and part of the POV version was sourced and added. So I'd like to see whether this version is agreeable with whoever's out there. Kimchi.sg | talk 13:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been a long enough while. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has been protected 16 days, and it would be worth taking another stab at peaceful editing. There has been some progress on the particular issues that sparked the edit war and RFC. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As significant progress has been made among the editors of this article, I'd like to request that this article be changed from protected to semi-protected (there are still vandalism issues wit anons and new editors). Thanks! •Jim62sch• 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we're ready to move on. We took a poll, and it's unanimous. We're ready to come together again. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. Unprotected. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 15:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Er... We requested semi-protection not unprotection (note added emphasis above). In the few moments that it was unprotected, we already had one hit of vandalism. Vandalism mostly seems to occur from anomymous edits, so semi-protection would stop the vast majority of our problems. אמר Steve Caruso 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Make that two (at least). "Jesus is my homeboy?" Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Now three... :-( אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw what you requested, but decided it's not appropriate in this situation. Semiprotection is not used preemptively. The protection was done to prevent an edit war while people discussed disagreements, not to prevent anon vandalism. You have an agreement, therefore it's been unprotected. If enough anon users start to vandalize the article, then feel free to post a request for protection here. But it must be significant vandalism; one, two, three or even seven or eight edits aren't enough. It has to be such pernicious vandalism that regular editors can't handle reverting the article. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 17:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. There is and has been enough vandalism to merit semi-protection. This is a sensitive and controversial article, and the application of "pernicious" is subjective at best. •Jim62sch• 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you disagree, but I'm not going to semiprotect it. There have been a grand total of five reverts today; nowhere near enough to warrant semiprotection. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin acted prematurely; should be waiting for dispute resolution response from User:Danny as requested by same. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone else just unprotected it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: it's protected again (because of a relatively minor edit dispute about cross-namespace links (of all things)). I'd like to re-request unprotection. Tlogmer (Talk / Contributions) 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 03:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you speak for a page protection committee? As far as I can tell from looking at the page history, the dispute cited for protection was relatively minor, so I'd like to appeal the decision. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I speak for myself. Other administrators who watch this page are free to disagree. I note that none have. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the admin who protected, and I feel it needs to stay that way for a short time, because it's in part a legal issue and therefore potentially serious; the lawyer has given certain advice, while some users are questioning it, so people need some time to find a solution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just noting here that Cyde unprotected, then some new role accounts started reverting, so I sprotected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.