Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graal unixmad (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 31 July 2006. 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. A lot of anon IP drive-by vandalism due to current events. IronDuke 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Continuing edit war with no discussion on talk page. - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Anons with static IPs continue to vandalise said article with trolling and total disgregard to NPOV, amoungst other Wikipedia rules. SilentRage 08:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Last vandalism is days old. Lectonar 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Anons continue to replace the entire article with a copyvio—and with no explanation either. It seems that people have gotten tired of reverting. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection as a cooling down period needed. --Ezeu 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Ridiculous edit war over one word ("pro-active"). Users have been warned on the talk page to stop but won't. Am also heading over to 3RR shortly. Powers 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has been blocked.Voice-of-All 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Several anonymous IP addresses, presumably Jebidiah2 sock puppets, continue to vandalize this article with things negative towards the Calgary Flames. The reverts are too many, so I am requesting protection of this page, at least temporarily. Thanks! --Chuchunezumi 00:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by RasputinAXP. Voice-of-All 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please lock Bulbasaur?? It's being vandalised by the minute. Madman 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is currently on the main page. Policy is not to protect pages linked to from the main page. Morgan Wick 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    well, de facto policy is to protect it if there's a coordinated attack. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Vandalism might be a bit higher than usual because it's an article that captures the eye of the average vandal. But doesn't need protection at this point. --W.marsh 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Between the hours of 16:00 and 18:00 there were at least 20 reverts, and much of that was severe vandalism (e.g. a picture of a penis added to the article). I realize we need to be proud of our "anyone can edit" approach, but having penis photos stuck in a Featured Article is not putting our best face (or body part) forward.
    We protect images that are going to be on the Main Page. We need to protect FAs as well (IMHO). My 2 £, Madman 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it should be semi-protected Hello32020 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Activity has died down now; no protection. Lectonar 08:11, 31 July 2006 (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.

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

    Please unprotect my talk page as it was protected to prevent vandalism from socks a while ago. Paul Cyr 05:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    .Un-protected. Lectonar 06:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please unprotect this page as I have noticed some of Tupac's hits like 'Hit em Up' and 'Happy Home' are missing. I don't know who vandalised it, but I find it unfair on other users who, like me want to update wikipedia out of goodness. Thanks. (UTC)

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Please sign requests though. Voice-of-All 22:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request unprotection on this article so it can be redirected to Pinafore eroticism, as Petticoat Discipline and Petticoat Punishment are already redirected there. 18:47, 29 July 2006 (PST)

    It doesn't seem to have been protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am still unable to redirect it. 12:37, 30 July 2006 (PST)
    Someone appears to have done it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up.

    Unportect please. Just because two bozos are having and edit war doesnt mean that this article should be kept from improving. If they vandalize the article, just block them. Warfwar3 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Some blocks may be needed though. Voice-of-All 23:24, 29 July 2006 (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.

    Her real name was Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. In really she was the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal. This was the definitive sentence of the Sacra Romana Rota, the most important tribunal for cattolich birth. So the doubts of many wiki user that use this page for vandalism are groundless because the official document states she was daughter of the king. So she is a real pretender. Please delete in this page the link to "impostor pretender" because this affirmation is false. And please so stop with this protection and in this page write only official and objective documented facts and not doubts or personal opinion because this is a encyclopedia and not a talk page. NunoS. 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Requesting Semi-protection. Either one or more anonymous editors have been aggressively reverting and ading material to these pages, while refusing to pick one (ore more) consistent User Names or even psudonymns so that editors can determine who the heck we are talking to. I am asking for Semi-Protection in an effort to encourage the phantom editor(s) to at least use a consistent pseudonym, Otherwise it is impossible to hold any of the "entities" accountable.

    See the assorted editing entities at Tavistock Clinic: 86.135.178.1, 86.137.158.155, 86.142.171.131, 86.138.29.186, 86.135.123.2, 86.135.218.31, 86.144.101.232.

    See the assorted editing entities at John Rawlings Rees: 86.135.222.0, 86.144.101.232, 86.135.218.31, 86.135.179.98, 86.135.71.85.

    Many of these edits resemble the work of the banned User:Herschelkrustofsky and other pro-LaRouche editors, and making people sign in might help straighten this mess out and produce constructive editng.--Cberlet 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Fred sprotected Tavistock Clinic, and I sprotected John Rawlings Rees and Tavistock Institute. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting semi-protection. Over the last 2 days, the article has been chopped and changed over 20 times. The bone of the contention is over Michael Carrick transfering to Manchester united. The transfer is not yet complete or has hardly started, yet unregistered users keep changing the article with him playing for Manchester United. Niall123 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Administrator SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) applied semi-protection to this page to prevent further vandalism as I requested. However, the version of the page that is now semi-protected is the vandalized version. As I am a new Wikipedia member myself, I am unable to revert the page to the version before it was last vandalized by Ima Loser (talk · contribs). Can an administrator please revert to last saved version of the page before Ima Loser (talk · contribs) vandalized it before it was protected? --Kgg 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Several unregistered users keep adding nonsense to the page, the most recent being pointless uses of the word "extreme". Page has been reverted several times (and one user has been warned), but they continue to vandalise it. This page should be protected against unregistered users. --Covenant Elite 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't appear to be a vandalism issue but a dispute of grammar. Also, there has been no real recent activity. Use the talk page for this. Yanksox 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. I have tried to clean this badly-written and badly-formatted article up by WP:MOS standards, as I've explained in detail at Talk:Ferrol, A Coruña, but an anonymous editor keeps reverting. Semi-protection might flush the anon out by forcing him/her to register, and then I can try to reasom with him/her through talk pages. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 17:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. A lone vandal Ima Loser (talk · contribs) has repeatedly reverted the page to an earlier edit to remove recently added material about a blog (Pathetics Nation) that parodies the original blog (Athletics Nation) that is the subject of the page. Attempts to contact and explain to Ima Loser (talk · contribs) through his/her Talk that it's OK for him/her to edit the information about Pathetics Nation, but not OK to simply delete it, have gone unanswered. --Kgg 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin: Thanks for semi-protecting the page as I requested. However, the version of the page that is now semi-protected is the vandalized version that Ima Loser (talk · contribs) last reverted to, and thus the relevant information about Pathetics Nation is no longer included. As I am a new Wikipedia member myself, I am unable to reinstate the information about Pathetics Nation, which is relevant to the article. Is it possible for you to revert to last saved version of the page before Ima Loser (talk · contribs) made his/her final reversion before semi-protection was enacted? --Kgg 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unprotected it for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to numerous IP vandals. The manager section is repeatedly attacked, and even with multitudinous amounts of warnings and having one vandal banned, it still goes on. I believe that a lot of problems will go away with semi-protection on this page. MonsterOfTheLake 23:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Could this page be semi-protected, please? It has been disruptively edited for several weeks by Ptmccain (talk · contribs), who has engaged in numerous 3RR violations (including six blocks), serious personal attacks, WP:POINT violations, and posting what he believed were the real names of two editors on several talk pages. He has been blocked indefinitely, but continues to revert using AOL IPs and sockpuppet accounts. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is protection still needed? I do not see much recent activity of this user on that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that the user in question has been blocked indef. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protected. Many other users have been involved in the edit war. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, King of Hearts. I think full protection is unnecessary, but any protection is better than nothing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it wasn't an "edit war." It was a number of editors reverting the edits of a banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The article has been semi-protected for vandalism and needs to be unlocked so people can update this frequently changing game. RuneScape

    Its still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Voice-of-All 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting page move protection

    (these two page moves were performed by editors active in the naming debate)

    → if you ask me a page move protection would be recommended to cool down, at least a few days. --Francis Schonken 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It should be noted that the poll was not a WP:RM poll but a strange 'multi-choice with secondary votes poll', and the old name survived several proper WP:RM. The proper procedure should be to revert that move, protect the page from moves and hold a proper WP:RM. Of course just like Francis I am involved in the discussion and none of us is unbiased here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those challenging the poll after it was concluded (based on thus far not substantiated by anything assertions regarding proper WP:RM polls) would be well advised to refer to the introduction given, namely: "list of options was compiled via a previous poll where participants were asked to list their first choice of what the name should be. Any option which received at least two such votes is now included in this approval poll, with the agreement that debate about any suffix such as "of Poland" is being set aside for now -- this poll is concentrating exclusively on the name of the monarch, and the inclusion or exclusion of the suffix will be discussed later. If, however, you feel extremely strongly that other options should be included, feel free to add them." The discussion preceding decision to conduct approval vote is available here. It is telling, I believe, that objections to poll setup were voiced only after it was concluded, by the minority who didn't like the outcome. --Doc15071969 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also to be noted that the result of the poll was... 16 in favour of Jogaila and 16 in favour of Wladyslaw II Jagiello, and it was entirely up to the closing admin to chose which 16 is greater. //Halibutt 00:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe has move-protected. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. 3/4 of the edits to this page are now vandalism, and have been for a long while. A vandal will make five edits in a row before it's reverted. Little or no progress is being made; if anything, it's slowly sinking into the mud as people miss vandalism and it get buried. The past couple thousand edits at least have been riddled with vandalism, and it's been unprotected for a very, very long time. I'm sure that looking at page after page of the history will be a good indication. Dan 18:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor who protected the page did so "To put a stop to an edit war -- most of the edits over the last few days have been reversions about one phrase." There have only been a handful of edits over the "last few days" with only some of them related to an apparent edit war between one editor and a few others. That editor has since stated that he or she has "no problem removing [the statement in question]." --ElKevbo 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Voice-of-All 23:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protection: This article is headed for an edit war promoted by an Irish Protestant who refuses to allow criticism of British treatment of Catholics and the homophobia of John Littlechild in his persecution of Oscar Wilde. 617USA

    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 22:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the edit warring is pretty much all on the requester's side. He has repeatedly made highly-POV edits in different articles.--SarekOfVulcan 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. This article is taking far too much vandalism, both minor (small offensive comments) and major (blanking with occasional replacement by offensive comments). A survey of the article's history shows a constant stream of fixes and reverts, taking valuable time from other more creative tasks. Gordon | Talk, 29 July 2006 @14:02 UTC

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism (See stats below).Voice-of-All 22:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3.82 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
    1 : 0.59 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
    26% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (26 edit(s))
    27.45% of edits by IPs/new/inexperienced users are non-reverts/reverted (14 out of 51 edit(s))

    My esteemed colleague ExplorerCDT appears to have a healthy sense of ownership of the Rutgers article. I've sought to engage him in a reasonable discussion of the matter. Made changes in an effort to satisfy him. Quoted to him from the Wikipedia suggestions as to how to resolve a dispute. And still is is given to simply deleting my entry. Any chance that this page -- or simply that section if possible -- might be protected? And any suggestions as to what additional step I might take at this point ... advocate, mediation, etc.?

    Much obliged.

    • User:Epeefleche submitted the above request for protection. I've corrected Epeefleche's misdirected addition of this request. I'm the person he's angry at. So what if I deleted his non-notable additions to the Rutgers University article. I told him the additions sucked, and gave him the chance to make them worth adding. When he failed to do that, and in the course of major editing the entire article, I discarded them. He persisted, I mentioned an alternative (which I stick to...including discussion of visual and performing arts in a prospective section entitled "academics"), and he didn't even consider it. instead, he kept re-adding the stuff that I removed, and I removed it again. Like any wounded dog, rather than realize the stuff was low-quality and non-notable, he started quoting rules. When you look at my work on the article, which I do not intend and have not intended to exert "ownership" over, my decision to subtract his "fluff" (as i call it) in addition to the other extraneous stuff I removed, my actions will be absolved. This page does not need protection, in my opinion, nor is there a need for arbitration or mediation. Epeefleche, with wounded pride, jumps the gun. —ExplorerCDT 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who informed you of that? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone e-mailed me privately (under their real name, not their user name here), an e-mail I'll gladly forward to you if you'd like, informing me that there is a possibility that Epeefleche was another account of the person responsible for Mantanmoreland. If you'd like me to forward that e-mail to you, please contact me or provide me with an e-mail address to direct it.—ExplorerCDT 02:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Admins! I have placed an sprotected tag in the Qana article as it has already been vandalised once (04:17 31.VII.2006) and has already had an 'inappropriate' image gallery removed. Information in the article has also been removed, so I figure it's probably best to lock the article for now. Hope this is OK. Cheers, AWN AWN2 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Graal_unixmad

    Requesting my talk page to be unprotected, the reason given is false, i have never edited my warning. My page is only cut/past from wikipedia content, if it make my page personal attacks, then all the pages i have copied/pasted should be blocked because the content copied/pasted have not been written by me.

    I will be more than happy to remove all content that are disruption, threats or personal attacks of the 16 year old sysop that have blocked my page had taken 2 minutes pointing to what was disruption, threats or personal attacks.

    Thanks for reviewing my request. Graal unixmad 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=66888078"