Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom.mevlie (talk | contribs) at 09:21, 25 March 2008 (→‎Current requests for unprotection: AHAHAHAHAHAHA). 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.

    Semi-protection - Since this page has been unprotected, users have again, been adding speculative episode titles to this article (but are hidden comments, like before). Mythdon (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection to cool off vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not even close, only one vandal edit in the last two weeks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for vandalism war. --Aleenf1 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. bu User:MBisanz. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for a longer term period due to continued idiotic "his middle name is Steve because some Internet parody series says so" vandalism. JuJube (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Long time semi protect ongoing vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. —Kurykh 06:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect because of the almost daily IP vandalism. Yahel Guhan 06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Continued vandalism from shared IP. No response from admin to block request..Tcncv (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does this need protection? It's only one IP address that's been doing this over and over; has this gone to AIV? Why haven't you been consistently warning the user? One simple 24-hour block and problem solved; no need to protect page. Tan | 39 06:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. for 31 hours; no need to protect. And Tanthalas39, please tone down your comments; everyone has a learning curve, and don't need to be browbeaten through it. —Kurykh 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My sincere apologies, I certainly didn't mean to bite! I was looking for further information - perhaps I didn't look far enough back in the history, etc. Point taken, I will back off my queries. Tan | 39 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protect request withdrawn - User IP has been blocked. Tcncv (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had only requested page protect when I didn't get a quick response to the IP user block request. I mistakenly requested full protect (new user mistake). Thanks for the block Kurykh. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem Tan. We all appreciate all the work you do. I'm partly at fault for being impatient. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism. It looks like the page was temporarily semi-protected, but was recently unprotected and subsequently vandalized. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism - looks like kids love to mess with article and not many people watch it. TestPilot 04:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -MBK004 04:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, out of last 20 edits(mine excluded), whole 4 edits was not a vandalism or RV of vandalism. That's many. But what is more important - vandal edits stayed in the article at least for 2 weeks, with no one fixing them. Who cares? And yeah, I totally agree with you, those should not be considered "recent". TestPilot 05:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection IP vandalism. This page is the main spot of vandalism in the Philippines. Almost everyday there are vandalisms occured because of the popularity of the article, which also awarded as the most search personality in Google.com.ph click -->([1]here). We need a semi-protection of this article to prevent vandalism as soon as possible. We expect that our request will be granted. Thank You.{Kung Fu Master (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:54, 25 March 2008 (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.

    Inexperienced user is not a valid reason for protection. 70.20.96.23 (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The protection will automatically cease in about a day, then feel free to edit the page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    It is protected, but as the user is gone, I see no reason why it should be. Tom.mevlie (talk) 09:21, 25 March 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.

    Tag it for G10 (or at the least, MFD) Consensus is that it's more vitriolic than most stuff. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already unprotected.. Hut 8.5 18:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protection IP vandalism. Only 1 edit in the past 6 days was not vandalism or a revert of vandalism. Footballfan190 (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. —Kurykh 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism/editing tests extend back for some time. Most of that vandalism is from IPs, and the amount of vandalism is disproportionate to the amount of good edits..Thinboy00 @151, i.e. 02:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. —Kurykh 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    un-protected Would like to update his information with factual information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin56 (talk • contribs) 02:26, March 24, 2008

    Declined; inability to discern request. —Kurykh 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection IP vandalism. Just the amount in 1 day 

    is heavy. Footballfan190 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Alexf42 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Many IPs continue to vandalize or destroy much of the content. Would like possible two week semi-protection..crassic![talk] 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator by Master of Puppets. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, A prominent journalist currently in the news for converting from Islam to Christianity...as such, the article has been a target for anon editors adding POV statements, factual inaccuracies, or just plain vandalism. A few days semi-protection until the news cycle moves on would be helpful..Nesodak (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Alexf42 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect'. More or less daily vandalism and nonsense edits from anon users. Not anything organised, though, but the article seems to have a permanent appeal for random nonsense vandalism. --Soman (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full; BLP violations. Sceptre (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Wrapped it up. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Due to recent amounts of vandalism. The show runs for twelve weeks normally so protection until the end of April would be great..♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Two months is awfully long. If vandalism starts up after protection is over, just submit it again. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Enigma msg! 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection : Have noticed that recently there has been a lot of updates from unsigned and possible SockPuppet authors. Many of the edits are aimed at adding a section on Scandals to the page. I'm not fully sure what the procedure is, but would it be possible to Semi-Protect this page from unsigned and sock puppet contributions. As I have mentioned in the discussion section on the page, the information that keeps being added is already available on Wikipedia in a section on such scandals. Personally, it appears that the authors/editors in question seem to have an anti-Assembly of God agenda. Although there is merit in their views, I feel it is not appropriate on the main encyclopedia entry page for the organisation. Paulrach (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection : Just look at the history : Dozens of nonconstructive edits by IPs consisting in reordering the list of schools. I suspect that the aim of these edits is only to make the IP's school appear first in the list. None of these changes are supported with references : Chances are that this constant "reordering" won't stop. NicDumZ ~ 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism by a banned user User: Kuntan (Puppets User: 59.91.253.7, User: 59.91.253.187, User: 59.91.253.11, User: 59.91.254.52). Sekharlk (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Waiting for Informal MediationGeorgeKelsey (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for ~½ yr. for "disruption". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reduce to semi-protected. Article was protected well over a month ago over a flame war that was not resolved, however, one of the participants is currently inactive on Wikipedia. Tucker Max has always been a target for drive by editors of both the fancruft-adding and vandal types, so I'm suggesting permanent semi-protection for it. McJeff (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Well, this one is tricky. From the talk page, there hasn't been a single attempt at working out the issues between the editors. However, I believe articles should not be full protected for long periods of time unless there is a libel or legal problem with it. Therefore I am lowering it to semiprotection. However, if the edit war starts again, and considering the apparently lack of discussion about this matter in the talk page, blocking the users would be a better option than fully protecting it again. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Dispute, nothing but vandalism from IPs.The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:206.224.254.17 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect. Anonymous user is disrupting his own talk page. This user is currently on a one-year block for persistent vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protection dispute disruptive edits[2] inspite of warnings[3]ThanksAjjay (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. In general, vandalism of this article has only increased in the past few weeks. I don't know if protecting this page would be the absolute best thing to do, but it doesn't seem like any valuable contributions are coming from the population that generally keeps vandalizing it. Perhaps if this can be done with a discreet template ({{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}) for a substantial amount of time, it would reduce the vandalism in the long run? Jared (t)  21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That should give things enough time to calm down. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection User talk of blocked user, IP disruption..NonvocalScream (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, there is just 1 IP doing this, and I just blocked it. (1 == 2)Until 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. - so the bot notices. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    permanent creation protection Spam page recreated six times today. Redfarmer (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Johnny Au (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, Content & reference dispute between User:Thegingerone & User:Kevin j. After protection was lifted yesterday (because of their edit warring), both resumed adding content, etc despite being asked to discuss changes first and reach some sort of consensus before making changes again. As the third party involved, I've been attempting to work with the users with very little cooperation..Pinkadelica (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=200758324"