Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kai (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 15 September 2007 (→‎{{la|Sulake}}). 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 new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.


    Please consider semi-protection. Edit wars over one statement that is not substantiated by references. see discussion. First time here, not sure how it works. Thanks. RC 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Steady stream of vandalism from IP anons. Peaks around every Thursday to Friday, when fan-made scans of the most recent Bleach manga chapter are released, and original research and speculation are frequently added.Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection Unprotection, It's been protected for ages now, and I'm sure the two newbies involved have lost interest. If they haven't, block them for 3RR (look how many reverts they did!).Rambutan (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Unprotected despite several instances of vandalism, and today there were six different IP's/users who vandalized the page once the page got unprotected. --Andrewlp1991 05:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ❤ 06:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, This page is constantly being vandalized, and protecting the page will have very few negative effects..Grim-Gym 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - mad! Don't think I ever had to semi-prot an image yet - Alison ❤ 06:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD templates

    Template:Afd_top (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Template:Afd_bottom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi all. These templates are in high-use for deletion debates - a stray change, whether by a vandal or an accidental edit, could cause problems. In addition, it makes it easier to tell whether you are editing the original or a copy. --Sigma 7 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection due to move war. K. Lásztocska 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected Alison ❤ 06:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection - heavy vandalism from one user and several IP addresses (including sockpuppets) today and yesterday. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 03:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - User:Thrillmecd is persistently edit warring in this article with this name and several IPs, and is not responding to any warnings or blocks, and is making no attempts at constructive communication despite several invitations to do so. His last edit summary says he's going to keep edit warring. Crystallina 03:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Content dispute. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SALT. Page was deleted at MfD by User:Daniel as a userspace violation. These two are reincarnations of the page (the latter after I prod'd the former). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Mr.Z-man 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection, expiry 1 month - These anon IPs, which I believe are the same person, kept changing the layout of the article, despite a hidden warning in it. Specifically, the warning said "Don't separate the gameplay", but the anon(s) did separate the money tree into a separate and space-wasting section in itself, with unnecessary coloring. And his edits are even outdated, since new episodes have been released every week. These are: 172.214.95.28 (talk · contribs), 172.159.115.141 (talk · contribs), 172.141.30.59 (talk · contribs), 172.188.109.96 (talk · contribs), 172.206.184.186 (talk · contribs), and 172.189.85.109 (talk · contribs). I know that because of these changing IP addresses, issuing a warning will be futile. Please respond on this ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mr.Z-man 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect Content dispute over the use of flags in the Sri Lankan Civil War template there appeared to be consenus on 4th September in talk now it has broken.We are ready to consider mediation to resolve the dispute which a user has offered in talk.Hence we need to stop the revert war.This template is used in many pages covering the Sri Lankan conflict.Hence want protection.Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.

    I was referred here by the admin who protected the page. Currently there is no edit war going on (somewhat unusual for this article, admittedly). There is a dispute over the inclusion of some images, which has resulted in a handful of reversions over the last few days, however nothing disruptive. The image issue is not going to be resolved by this protection (if anything it has been inflamed by it), and simply stops legitimate editors working on the text. --Michael Johnson 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotectThis article was several times vandalized by Duja then 'protected' in order to prevent me further anonymously edit this article. I am main editor of this article, my edits are explained on the article talk pages, supported by valid and verifiable references. Also, Duja keeps vandalizing the talk pages by removing my explanations and baselessly claiming that I am a banned user.--4.249.0.41 21:51, 14 September 2007 (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.

    semi-protect. I've been in contact with the manager of Courtney Love's website and myspace page, and he would like certain inaccurate sections of the article regarding her new album, Nobody's Daughter, removed, including the image which has been posted as the album cover. This album cover has not been released yet and much of the track information is false. Matthewbdunn 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I have no way of verifying what you said is true or not. They should contact OTRS instead. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been doing some major overhauling to the template, which was cut/pasted from a prototype on my user space to the template article. Unfortunately, there are still some minor bugs that need to be resolved, and it's difficult for me to get admins to make my requested changes. I'd like to request a temporary downgrade to semi-protection for one week in order to allow me to implement needed edits. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - just re-request here or contact me directly and I'll move it back up to full protection. Thanks for your work on the template. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor seems to have flown in to remove sourced content without explanation right before the article was protected. This was unrelated to the edit war that got it protected in the first place. The edits started right here. 21:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

    Would someone please to restore the content? Just64helpin 23:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done WjBscribe 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just what the hell is going on here? Why is this page protected from recreation? This is a damn good redirect to List of Pokémon Anime Films, but I can't do anything about this since the page is protected from recreation, yet I see nothing in the log. TheBlazikenMaster 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - I think that's a very valid point, especially given the page has actually never been created. If it becomes a problem later, we can deal with it in other ways - Alison ☺ 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and created that redirect.--Chaser - T 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am attempting to add useful and accurate information to this page, including links to relevant legislation and comparisons to other jurisdictions. I request that the entry be reverted to my last edit, or some reasonable variation. jbdelaporte 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - we're not going to revert to a previous version, which would have us taking part in an edit war. You may use the {{editprotected}} tag on the article talk page, with your suggested changes, and we can evaluate whether to make those changes on your behalf. - Philippe | Talk 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this very confusing. I thought the instructions were to only use the tag for a minor edit.jbdelaporte 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR‎ I asked for a large number of reversions in content disputes by the user Francis Tyers. The article were protected by all the Wiki users in last variant reverted by Francis Tyers. Some parts of reverts even arent explained in the talk page! For example he never explains why he readded "large number" term, deleted <fact> tag despite no citations from the HRW and Memorial Human Rights Center provided etc (he tried to explain only why he deleted some links which he marks as "hysteric"). I request that the entry be reverted to the last edit by Pocopocopocopoco or some reasonable variation. Andranikpasha 10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Should discuss this on the article talk page. Navou banter 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    User talk:66.35.127.0 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection +expiry 12 hours, Full protection: Dispute, 66.35.127.0 and Calton are trolling each other. Might want to protect User talk:Calton, too.—Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 01:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, repeated vandalism.Hammer1980 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Vandalism isn't that regular to warrant protection. -- Longhair\talk 01:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, (expiry 1 month ?) - String of anonymous vandalism edits over the past week, often half a dozen in a single day. This is a core article, but almost all of the edits in the past week have been random insertions, vandalism, or reversions. --EncycloPetey 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 weeks. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, heightened vandalism.~Eliz81(C) 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Muntuwandi (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protect recent and frequent vandalism.User page too would be great. Muntuwandi 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user returns every evening with a new IP. Muntuwandi 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of random vandalism. Article is rated Top priority on several wikiprojects. Not sure if the page has been protected before, but judging by edit history it needs protection. Jeff Dahl 23:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Semi-protected for two weeks, and after those two weeks have passed, the page will no longer be semi-protected. As for any past protection to the page, the last time it was protected before now was back in November, and it was then unprotected in January. Acalamari 23:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. Beginning of a nasty edit war. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. WjBscribe 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, for it is today's FA Marlith T/C 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. We don't usually protect the main page featured article. Its the first page many new users come across of the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" so the consensus is that they should be able to edit it. A lot of people watchlist the mainpage FA so vandalism is reverted quickly. Its got less than an hour to go on the mainpage now anyway. WjBscribe 23:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Been locked since 24 the July. The discusion on the talk page Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Page protection here involved me, 2 now indefinitely banned users and one other user whose only edit in the lastt month was this uncivil message. Its now time to unprotect so we can move forward with this totally disputed article. When I last asked for unprotection I was advised to work it out on the talk page and I believe I have done so, SqueakBox 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. WjBscribe 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:OrionTheMetalhead (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full-protection Wannabe tough guy making disruptive edits. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    unprotection Unprotection, Salt. Continual recreation of nonsense.The Evil Spartan 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection: IP vandalism increasing, we've held it at bay for a while but have had two vandalisms visible for 1-2 hours each in the past day, which I think is unacceptable. I also think we'll have to semi-protect until after the US elections at some point, probably not yet though. Pro crast in a tor 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Anon vandalism and edit warring (despite days of policy explanation). It would be good to protect the talk page as well. Absentis 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 days, Semi-protection: Vandalism, High-profile case of well known actor sentenced for child porn offences today, has already on a small scale and may in the near future attract vandalism by unregistered users..Liverpool Scouse 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection - ongoing edit war as to whether a section constitutes a BLP violation. The Evil Spartan 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection Full protection: Vandalism, No reason to have the page of a highly respected, now retired user, vandalized with swastikas and uncivil edit summaries. [1].--(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    'Semiprotect. Being hit hard by anons today. Corvus cornix 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection. This article appears to be a hotbed of new user and IP address vandalism. --Endless Dan 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=158017789"