Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angelrada (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 23 May 2006 (→Current requests for unprotection). 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

    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.


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

    Full Protection Banned user thewolfstar (talk · contribs · count) created a sockpuppet account, Dot Bitch (talk · contribs · count), which is now blocked. She continues her litigious attitude and arguments on her user talk page. My attempt to encourage her to change her behavior resulted in yet another fiasco and a round of arguments (so maybe I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place; comments welcome on this.) Since she was already banned for exhausting the community's patience, protecting the talk page would be a good start. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I see at least one legal threat there too. She's been given plenty of good advice and chosen not to take it. --ajn (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection Unregistered user keeps adding irrelevant content regarding Tesco to the page. Repeated efforts to discuss the matter (on the Talk page) have failed, page has been reverted dozens of times in the past couple of weeks by various editors. --Oscarthecat 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there's enough activity there to semiprotect. I will add the page to my watchlist and revert/block if necessary. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection This page has become an attraction for vandals. See the article's history for reference of evidence. So far, an indefinitely blocked vandal, two of his sockpuppets, and Jon777 have vandalized this article. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllTalk 01:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection against recreation Recreated material after consenus was to delete. NapoleonB 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection against recreation I think this request is in the wrong place; the article in question has been repeatedly recreated after being deleted. NapoleonB 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Constant vandalism and POV from anon editors (13 times so far this month) Jhonan talk 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not enough for a semiprotect. Just revert. · Katefan0 (scribble) 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to let you know the same anonymous vandal has doctored one of my comments on the talk page again, as well as repeatedly putting the same vandalism back in the parent article. Suggest blocking. Jess Cully 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately this is an AOL IP, which we can't really block without significant collateral damage. Instead I'll semiprotect the pages. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Continues vandalised in the past few days including whole article replaced with this one. --TheYmode 15:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not enough vandalism, just revert. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full protection, this image is highly prone to vandalism and will undoubtedly suffer again if not vprotected. Netscott 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This Featured Article receives a huge amount of abuse from IP vandals. There has not been a single useful contribution in weeks, if not more, and the entire edit history consists of vandalism reverts. - Emt147 Burninate! 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-AllTalk 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection while edit warring editors (including myself) can get some help with dispute resolution. Netscott 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Granted, by me. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Has be serverly vandalised not so long ago by an IP with it's wikitext replaced entirely by wikitext form this page, and it's a very angry face. Myrtone@Requests for page protection.com.au 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nowhere near enough vandalism for a semiprotect, and none ongoing. Just revert. · Katefan0 (scribble) 06:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. Increasingly persistent vandal with multiple IP addresses. He/them is deleting the Criticism section, or pasting in advertising directly from the company's website. The first few instances are documented on the talk page. Warnings have been left on talk page and on userpages of the IP addresses. Me and others have been reverting him for about a month, but recently he has started doing it several times a day. Suspect that vandal could be affiliated with the company. --SecondSight 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: This artical is being vandelised by anomons due to Genji 2 reciveing "Fad" stats after it E3 debut (the presenter makeing mention of "Actual Battles" and "Giant enemy crabs" is the reason it earned this) Deuxhero 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not enough vandalism, just revert. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    I think there a works against our work in Southamerica, how can persons trying to block our expression, what is democracy, only Uraniun records it`s doing somerthing good for another persons to inform about what`s happening in art in Southamerica, it`s long boring but it`s real true, gop to Venezuela or another place look for in Libraries or Universities, to give for sure something must be prove it and Uraniun Records and the persons mentioned in the article ,can confirm it angelrada 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    Protection inappropriate and unacceptable. This has only been done to impose a foreign name on the article, which is NOT the purpose of WP. Also the talk page has also been protected. This MUST be unblocked. Yanito.

    Been semi-protected from IP Vandalism since May 9. As of today it is the U.S. Collaberation of the week. Has a rather involved protection history though - perhaps we should unprotect and test the waters again? RN 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove protection As to me, I do not see disputes anymore. The existing usage of the words 'bestialities' and 'Nazi' is clarified. Also, in the last paragraph the broken link can be restored or removed.--Purger 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked on the talk page. · Katefan0 (scribble) 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputes resolved; see talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.9 (talk • contribs)

    done. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=54718944"