Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.18.109.218 (talk) at 04:20, 6 August 2006 (moved my request to be on the bottom of the section). 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.

    Needs full protection. Two Albanian nationalist users are repeatedly deleting cited content for POV reasons; I'm starting an RfC against one of them as a preparatory step to arbitration, but in the meantime the edit warring needs to be stopped. -- ChrisO 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is definitely need for protection of not only this article, but any Kosovo-related document from the user above, who (surprisingly) is an admin, but does not behave as one, but instead takes sides in disputes and fanatically defends his opinion by harrassing (calling them nationalists, asking them to grow up, etc) those who disagree with him. Regards, ilir_pz 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Request denied. I have not observed edit warring to the extent that warrants protection. Some editors may need 3RR warnings, though. 01:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

    Requesting full protection due to edit wars. I protected it myself before, but have managed to get involved in the edit wars post-unprotection, so I am not in a position to go and protect it again. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am requesting full protection due to frequent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundra X (talk • contribs)

    Article is currently semi-protected and going through an AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This request also includes: Bulbasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mary Cheney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lance Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Elias Ashmole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A WoW sock moved all five to inappropriate names. The Bulbasaur one played on its recent reach to the Main Page (FA). Elias' article was also FA, and Judaism (a very important topic) was GA at that point. We want these pages sprotected as to stop moving of these high-quality, key articles to names where they should not be. TrackerTV 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just put the WoW sock up on WP:AIV.--KojiDude (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is now being frequently vandalised despite semi-protection - people have found ways around the semi-protection, see the most recent edits for an overview. --TheM62Manchester 09:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, full protection is inappropiate for such a large subject. Watch and revert. Computerjoe's talk 12:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think full protection is needed now. --TheM62Manchester 12:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been calm for eight hours now, I think the storm has been weathered. Stifle (talk) 23:31, 5 August 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.

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

    Whole page edit was to restore prior comp-lete information. Last edit before protection elimineated both content and context and omitted important information. No reason to protect; current state of article omits important relevant information. Please restore open access.

    Unprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article semi-protected because of anon vandals. The game comes out in a couple of days, and the vandals appear to be gone, and some of the best contributions to the article have been from anons. Please remove block. Travb (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Un-protected. Voice-of-All 01:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been reverted and protected by a user (Bosniak) who is unwilling to accept any other presentation/analysis of the events than his own. Instead of discussing the edits he has reverted it to his own version and then protected it claiming that I have vandalized the article when in fact I have (a) offered to discuss edits (which has not been answered), (b) explained all edits I have made and (c) provided credible references for all of my edits.

    I believe the user (Bosniak) is too emotionally involved in the topic to be able to make sound and neutral judgements and therefore aks for other administrations to step in. Cheers, Osli73 21:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page was never protected. Bosniak, who isn't an admin, added the {{sprotect}} template to the page, but that on its own does not cause protection. I've removed the tag. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk and user page semi-protected because I was being dumb. Request unprotection, because I have learned my lesson, seeing it has been over a year. I want to be able to appropriately contribute at this time, and I need these channels opened for debate. 67.18.109.218 04:00, 6 August 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.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    temporary protection. The page is going through a nasty edit war centred around the introduction. Listing it on RfC didn't help, it actually only made things worse, and the editors who remain show no signs of compromising. Restoring it to a version before the edit war began (such as this one) and protecting it for a few days seems to me to be necessary to get people to "cool down" and agree on a compromise wording. -- Arvind 22:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I request that a disputed tag be added to this page, pending resolution of the dispute. There is a dispute and an ongoing process to resolve the dispute at the present time. BruceHallman 21:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection implies that there is a dispute, so there is no need for this. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, under frequent vandalism from bored message board users at the moment. Temporary should be more than sufficient.--GlitchBob dbug 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Should be reviewed in 24 hours or so. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection; "the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with"; it has gotten to the point that acts of vandalism are being missed even though several different editors have the page on watch. Thanks.64.109.251.181 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Yanksox 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An anonymous user continues to tag the image as unsourced, and use this tag as a pretext to remove the image from relevant articles. The user refuses however to participate in debate and argue why they dont believe the image complies with fair use. No objections have been raised nor at the talk page for possible unfree images - Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#July_28 nor at the image's proper talk page. I request a semi protection of the image page, so that the same anonymous user cannot continue tagging it, and thus obstructing its use, without even caring to argue their case. Bertilvidet 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The anonymous user continues the tagging without giving reasons or participating in debate. It seems like some sophistacated vandalism. Hope action will be taken, as this really is a waste of time. Bertilvidet 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. This is very bizzarre, the anon user appears to have a history of doing this to numerous images. If they have an issue and can raise an argument agasint the image, they can post on the talk page. Yanksox 17:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The funny thing is that he kind of has a point. The image had three different copyright tags, a GFDL, a cc-by, and a fair use (poster). It doesn't need fair use if it is under a free license, so I removed the fair use tag. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with two IP editors doing bot-esque bi-daily reverts. Please semi-protect, and keep an eye on the two IP's involved. Myciconia 04:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Request declined, nothing has happened in two days, nor has nothing occured to show that semi protection is needed. Yanksox 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This topic has been vandalized frequently, and I am asking that it be protected.


    Duck was semiprotected at 05:04 on 26 July 2006 to stop the endemic silly vandalism that the subject of ducks attracts. But at 15:38 on 4 August 2006 someone unprotected duck, and (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duck&diff=67778557&oldid=67777997 ), as I expected, the vandalism restarted only half a day later. Please semiprotect duck permanently, as events have shown that duck vandals are prepared to wait until the semiprotection period is over.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Also permanent semi-protection is only used in extreme cases of vandalism, the current vandalism to this article is nowhere near that extreme level. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 06:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This page has been deleted 6 times. Please protect in order to prevent recreation. Also, please check who created this page, and warn the user(s). Thanks JianLi 03:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected to prevent re-creation. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. - Suffers from edit warring. Should be protected until disputes are resolved and discussed on talk page. -- Clevelander 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 01:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Un-protected. Voice-of-All 01:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I got a request to protect this article at my talk. Oddly, I was listed at a related mediation case, in spite of never having edited any effected article. Nevertheless, I'd rather avoid even the slightest chance of their being confusion about my level of involvement. The issue is that unfree images (team logos) are being repeatedly inserted into the article, in spite of the fact that their status under Wikipedia:Fair use criteria policy is disputed. In this case it may well be better to protect the page than to block the editors adding in the unlicensed images, since there is more than one user involved, and time may well be needed to explain how we handle unfree content here. As an aside, I note that there is significant discussion going on about the use of logos, but we shouldn't be publishing them in articles while their licensing and policy status is disputed. Jkelly 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Give the users the policy links and become more stern if needed. I will not lock a page because people are adding things that don't meet Fair use. The logos would be appropriate on the team's respective pages, but not just too decorate charts. Also note that:
    "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo."
    This can be found at Wikipedia:Logos. Also see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images; team and corporate logos are to be used for identification. Voice-of-All 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now the subject of anon-IP sockpuppet reverts. Suggest protection before it becomes a 3RR issue. ed g2s • talk 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request permenant semi-protection. The article receives multiple spams a day. Computerjoe's talk 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 20:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Featured article has been the target of vandalism. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has died down now; no protection needed. Lectonar 10:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Template:AOL (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

    Really no reason for full protection, in fact it's probably the only high profile vandalism target on wikipedia that isn't vandalized. Template is updated frequently, and anon AOL edits actually seem to help, I can point to a dozen times in the last month when anons have made formatting fixes, and so on, that would have other wise gone unnoticed.--AOL account 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lowered to Semi-protection. Voice-of-All 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=67944760"