Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.17.248.1 (talk) at 19:30, 28 September 2006 (→‎{{La|Muslim}}). 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 this please. Don't know what's going on, but there's a lot of vandalism from anons. --198.185.18.207 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello? --198.185.18.207 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Semi-protected. Cowman109Talk 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodbye. Thanks! --198.185.18.207 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like this article to be protected temporary as the page vandalized a lot. Third world countries like North Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, India sometimes deliberately put on the list and it is quite misleading indeed. Plus, nonsense always added by certain unknown IP multiple users from Singapore. Some good editors already put the problem of vandalism on discussion board, however, nobody noticed. Please refer to the history and discussion board for this topic and make your own decision. Thank you very much indeed! Yee Leung 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    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.

    If I'm reading the logs right, it looks like this was semi-protected months ago, someone removed the notice, and then everyone forgot it was semi-protected. --Allen 18:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user's talk page was protected for the duration of a tempblock - the tempblock has since expired, but the page was left semi-protected. It should have been fully unprotected since there's no history of vandalism on it. Well, there is, but still, the page should have been unprotected when the block expired. --Coredesat talk! 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been protected from vandalism for a while now. Allow unprotection to be deactivated. Some recently obtained information has been discovered and should be added 22:03 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Hi. Requesting unprotection for this IP address. The continuous removal of links by user Lacrimosus and others over the past couple of weeks to the two additional websites (ACT & VIC, see history) is purely for political purposes. Considering I was the user to initially add all websites in good faith, I don't agree with the removal of certain websites for political gain as this is not the nature of the informative article. There is no distinction between 'official' and 'unofficial' sites. --203.100.252.74 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Requesting unprotection for this entry. Certain users keep removing entries about Muslim that are true. They remove them because they are negative, but still very true comments that they don't like. So they are leaving a sanatized version of Muslim on the site and censoring out the truth, albeit negative. They want a block not from vandalizing, but from people they are trying to censor, claiming the things they are saying are POV, when it is fact that there is terrorism associated with Muslim, such as http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.main/index.html . The moderators do not want anything negative to show such as Muslim leaders calling for Jihad. This is censorship and does not give an accuracte depiction of what kind of Muslims exist, even with documentation to back it up. The moderators or whoever is on there keeps removing negative references that are true and factual only because they don't like the image it gives. But again, FACTS are being mentioned. NOT POV... They claim that links like those from CNN and other news agencies about muslim terrorists are POV and shouldn't be mentioned. Some things ladies and gentlemen are just plain not rosey. YOu can't censor because you don't like it. You must allow truth to be heard. POV is "I don't like Muslims". FACT is that Muslim terrorists are calling for Jihad against Christians. Why would you remove a link like that?? It is part of history - and history you are trying to erase. Hitler and Nazis after his death tried erasing history. It isn't right.

    It's been a few days and the Macaca clones have quieted down. Might as well risk it. --StuffOfInterest 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I would like to edit, but do not want to sign up for an account. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 13:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was move protected. I added the {{R from alternate name}} template to the Shadowcat redirect, so the user who kept moving it to that page over redirect will have to submit a WP:RM request or try to use {{db-move}}; in any case, he can't disruptively move war anymore. Hbdragon88 07:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason this has been "vandalized" is by adding two fansites to the section. It is not fair that one should have priority over the other, or that their can't be more than one at all! Someone seems to think this is the rule, and is quite paranoid about it, all I am asking is that the link natalia-tena.net, a valid Natalia Tena source that will benefit users perhaps even more than the article itself is placed under external links. Thankyou.Poifect 010:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection so that comments made by a banned user while he was banned can be removed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr_Chatterjee. Centrx protected this page to force the retention of comments by an indefinitely banned vandal; however, Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits clearly states that

    Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

    John254 17:10, 10 September 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.

    Tags are inaccurate. {{Indefblockeduser}} should be replaced with {{Banned user}} due to a community ban, and {{Sockpuppeteer}} should be replaced with {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} because this user has some proven sockpuppets. Jesse Viviano 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Nothing on talk page for awhile. —Khoikhoi 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been semi-protected from vandalism for a week or so now. Allow unprotection to be deactivated, to see whether the problem resurfaces... This stinks, there isn't any info! Psychofox22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been semi-protected for almost a week... let's unprotect this and see how things go. -/- Warren 09:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just stopped by this page; it has been protected for nearly eleven days and the last discussion post was seven days ago. Let's unprotect this and bring it back to the wikiworld. Sdedeo (tips) 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with him Cooldude830

    Page un-protected [1] by Mangojuice. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 15:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The edit war over the name "Chelski" may have died down, but this article continues to be attacked by anonymous vandals.[2][3][4][5] I have been reverting a lot of anonymous vandalism to this article lately. Please semi-protect it, so we can work on improving the article instead of reverting the anonymous vandals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Gwernol 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a great deal of anon IP general nonsense vandalism to this article over the last couple of hours. I think a semi-protect is needed to allow a good "cooling off" period. SquidSK (1MC) 08:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like this page to be protected as one individual of dubious origin (probably a man mentioned in the article) constantly vandalizes the article. His IP address begins with a 193.etc.etc., but constantly changes at the end. It is the same man. He vandalizes this article. I would like the page protected from unregistered users. Otherwise the article is becoming worthless. I don't have time to be in edit wars with anonymous people constantly, people insulting me as a liar. Please protect the page. See for yourself!Smith2006 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Voice-of-All 13:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection requested - Multiple anon IPs vandalising the page, with obscene images, links, blanking and libel. Vandals include contributions, contributions, contributions and contributions. This edit indicates more vandalism may be on its way. - Hahnchen 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semiprotection - the article is consistently blanked by what appears to be a spambot, and the blankings and subsequent spam accumulations go unnoticed for days or weeks at a time. I have the article watchlisted, but my ability to monitor my watchlist is about to be severely compromised by starting work as well as university studies. Useful edits have not been made in some time, by anonymous or non-anonymous users. Requesting semiprotection for a week or two, long enough for the article to be delisted from the spambot. Captainktainer * Talk 04:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to continuous vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection as these are high-risk templates which are frequently used and associated with anti-vandalism efforts. One should have confidence when applying these templates to user talk pages that no one has tampered with them. John254 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - High-risk templates. WinHunter (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Frequent gross vandalism ever since Greer's article on Steve Irwin's death. request whatever protection might be appropriate, thanks. Leeborkman 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Cowman109Talk 00:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. The article has been vandalized by 30 different IP addresses during this month alone, with multiple offenders such as 165.29.85.125. I'm currently working on getting this article GA status, but with all this vandalism going on, legitimate editors will be spending more time reverting vandalism than writing quality material (the article is already in need of much editing). A lot of the recent edits (by users other than myself) have been just reverting vandalism. I think the semi-protection should be temporary just until we have a decent GA article on our hands. Lestat 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined as there does not appear to be enough activity to justify protection at this time - Lebanon is a topic of interest, so vandalism is not uncommon on articles relating to current events. Please just watchlist and revert any vandalism you come across. Cowman109Talk 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi protection from forum vandals. --Wafulz 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined no recent activity. Not enough to justify protection at this time. Cowman109Talk 00:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Semi-protection. Constant vandalism (~every 2-3 days) from the 75.33.*.* and 75.36.*.* IP range. Dispite having reported the vandal the vandal keeps coming back under a new IP and defaces the guide with false information and/or silly defacements. RAM 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Many new accounts blanking the whole article and replacing with nonsense, many times in the last 6 hours of so. Needs semi-protect from new users. Thanks !Desertsky85451 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected temporarily to tire out the vandal. Cowman109Talk 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request protection as admin sees fit. Members are trying to suppress information that they would "prefer to keep secret." This wouldn't work for Enron, and it won't work for a sorority, either. 68.8.58.109 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, not enough activity to justify protection at this time. Cowman109Talk 00:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. Heavy vandalism by annon.s for the past few weeks. KarlBunker 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Cowman109Talk 00:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please semi-protect page, user who does not log in and does not comment via discussion page reputs in blatanly biased texts (Madrone 21:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    no Declined as there is not enough activity to justify protection at this time. Cowman109Talk 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under attack, most probably from atendees of the school.~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined not enough activity, and the IPs don't seem to vary much, so blocking can probably handle this pretty easily. I'll watchlist the page. Cowman109Talk 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. This article gets a lot of vandalism. All edits in the past 2 or 3 days have been either vandalism or reverting the same. 6 vandalisms so far today, 9 yesterday. The vandalism is childish stuff like references to bodily functions, saying so-and-so invented water, partial and complete page blanking, etc. It comes from many different IPs. It would be nice to see this eventually reach GA status, but the vandalism makes it difficult to work on. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, not enough activity to justify protection at this time. There looks to be enough users available to revert vandalism on the page (which doesn't seem too frequent), so semi-protection should only be used if it becomes too much to revert. Cowman109Talk 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for semi-protection due to the continual vandalism from anonymous IPs. — ChristTrekker 18:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been watching this and: 1) The low level of activity there does not warrant any form of protection, 2) this is a legitimate content dispute, not vandalism. In the absence of actual edit warring and disruption, requests such always appear to grant a particular side in the content dispute the upper hand. Protection in this case is not necessary. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Legitimate content dispute" coming from people who refuse to give their names or any rationale for their asserted position? I beg to differ. Those editors who deign to log in have done a fairly good job at arriving at NPOV descriptions, IMHO. Alterations from those who won't stand behind what they say, when it's a politically/religiously sensitive issue, when it's done repeatedly despite the efforts of editors who have publicly aired their differences to get to an accurate article - all this points to simple vandalism, at least in my reckoning. Anonymous edits of noncontroversial topics is one thing, but to tolerate abuse by those who refuse to participate in the process is foolish and counterproductive. Requiring a bit of integrity (by registering and logging in) is a very small thing to ask, and doesn't grant either "side of the dispute" anything. — ChristTrekker 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined not enough activity. Please watchlist and revert any vandalism you come across. Cowman109Talk 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi protection. Same song, different verse. Multiple IPs are vandalizeing faster than I can even revert (took me 5 tries and I got 5 edit conflicts) with more edits right after. It needs to be locked as soon as possible. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by another administrator. Cowman109Talk 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection since a possibly conspired group of annonymous users are attempting simple and repeated vandalist attacks on this page about a well-known high school in Korea. Various subtle yet highly mischievous changes on the content of the articles include adding a link to 'sexual education' page as a part of a pun on the Korean version of the school motto, substituting information regarding school events with imagined farcicial events such as unexisting fruit-eating contests.

    Full protection is for vandalism and edit wars between registered users. If anonymous vandals are attacking an article, semi-protection should be used instead. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined not enough activity. Please watchlist and revert any vandalism you see. Cowman109Talk 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Requesting semi protection. User continues to blank his talk page after being blocked from editing. May require other action, have listed at the complex admin noticeboard. MyNameIsNotBob 09:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection prevents editing by anonymous users or by accounts less than 4 days old. How could a registered user's own talk page possibly qualify for semi-protection? He isn't anonymous, and if his account is more than 4 days old, semi-protection would accomplish nothing. Am I misunderstanding something here? -Amatulic 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined not enough activity, user appears to have stopped in the past 24 hours. Cowman109Talk 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi protection as unregistered users have been systematically deleting all references to Fischer's well-documented anti-Semitism (here's Fischer's website) & his Jewish heritage. Ironically, I do think there's an emphasis problem in the articles. Like John Forbes Nash, RJF is probably not fully responsible for his anti-Semitic comments (lay speculation: I am not a medical professional). Unlike Nash, antisemitism has been central to RJF's identity for some 25 years; publicly so since 1999 (if not earlier): his comments re 9/11/2001 are exemplary. I would love to solve this problem by addition (e.g., beefing up the chess content circa 1970, which is rather weak), and am happy to discuss POV issues with registered users, but am disinclined to cave in to the whims of nameless antisemites (rather difficult to assume good faith). Billbrock 08:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Posts were by suspected sockpuppet(s) of banned User:Licorne--per admin comments. Billbrock 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined as there is not enough activity to justify protection at this time. Cowman109Talk 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=78357849"