Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncsupimaster (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 13 December 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


    Requesting 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.


    "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-protect, repeated vandalism. Ncsupimaster 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect, repeated vandalism by anonymous users. ArthurWeasley 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect, second request. Continue and automatic spam by IP bots, probably due to 'forum' in title. KTC 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect, too many non members adding information that's juts pure nonsense, such as "Xemnas' name rearranges to spell Mansex" and "Demyx is gay" and all that sort of stuff. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect Edit war - I decline to block it myself as I might be regarded as an involved party.--Runcorn 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. I'm not entirely sure this is necessary, there's not much reverting going on. -- Steel 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect persistent attacks by IPs of Roitr (talk · contribs) inserting false information (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr) Demiurge 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Heavy vandalism from anon IPs, so semi-protect. Can someone look into blocking that IP?--Thomas.macmillan 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      User(s) blocked. -- Steel 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect There are currently many foolish IP edits to the article and it is taking up a lot of time to keep removing them. --Ianmacm 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Full Protection Heavy vandalism at least 10 times today. Nareklm 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. Main page article, constructive edits from anons/new users are being made. -- Steel 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. vandalism, semi-protect would help out alot, 10:46, 13 December 2006, 08:34, 13 December 2006. Nareklm 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. Heavy vandalism many times today.It has been vandalised 6 times in the last 3 days by unregistered users and he wants to remove the article .He vandalised many pagesa sking them to remove this page. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.144.22.95 He also does it from other IP address 80.195.10.170 then 161.12.7.4 Thanks Harlowraman 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi protection. Very heavy vandalism as of December 12, 2006. Anom8trw8 18:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect IP users, probably students at this high school, are committing frequent acts of vandalism. There has been so much vandalism that at this point, it is nearly impossible to find a valid version of the article to revert to. --orlady 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect Until the arbitration case is completed, I don't think the edit warring will stop until that happens. Dionyseus 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Please protect correct version[1] as Dionyseus and Skinny McGee have been adding false and unverifiable information to article, and that is what the arbitration is all about. GuardianZ 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected -- Steel 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. This article is very controversial and has been the target of repeated acts of vandalism many times today. I think it will continue to attract attention for several days after the conference ends. Jeffpw 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. Main page article, and there are some good edits despite the vandalism. Watchlisted. -- Steel 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect A small number of anonymous users (perhaps the same person using different IPs?) are making several dozen edits daily inserting false information. Since I started tracking this page I've got one IP up to a level 3 warning in just 12 hours. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. It's not at all clear to me that what they're adding is false. I've watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on it myself. -- Steel 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect Requesting semi protection from anon's since same anononymous user adds Jared Albaum to the list of notable alumni because he is King of the Guidos or related reasons. Postcard Cathy 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Big Boss 0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Big Boss 0 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

      Semi-Protect Recent vandalism has not stopped on my user page the past few days. I would appriciate it if my page would be blocked from vandals and future attacks from new users creating accounts just to vandalize my page. It has been vandalized by a few annon users here recently too. Big Boss 0 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Userpage Semi-protected, user talk page Declined per WP:SEMI. -- Steel 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect. Does not appear to be heavily contributed to, except for 69.155.154.38, who persists in adding copyrighted, POV material of a religious nature ("what was missing from his life was the power of Jesus Christ", "served the Lord Jesus Christ," etc.) while angrily declaring that it is fact because 1) user knew the subject and 2) information was published in subject's 36 books. Edit summary: "FACTS ARE FACTS. POV IRRELEVANT." User does not format article properly, user does not cite sources, user comments inline on state of article and his own edit war. User added ""'''semi-protect'''. Vandalism by persons not wanting to include facts. (signature)" to top of article. IMO, this page needs to be reverted to the previous unaltered version (just use mine if it's easy) and protected, and perhaps action needs to be taken against the aforementioned IP. Semi-protect will not suffice because the user has at least one account or ally (User:Benreser). If somebody wants to contribute something meaningful to the article, they can use templates. --Moralis 11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, I have reverted the disruptive troll user just a while ago and blocked him for gross disruption while dodging his previous block. I don't think that either protection or semi-protection are currently needed. Still, another admin should have a look on this.--Húsönd 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protect. Currently being edited (in good faith) by students at Northern State University as part of a class final. Much copyrighted and/or non-encyclopedic material is being inserted into the article, and repeated efforts at reverting are leading to comments like what can be seen here. (See under section TRM18, final paragraph.) ObtuseAngle 22:13, 13 December 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.

      Was fully protected after an isolated incident of vandalism from an anonimous IP. Protection should be removed or lowered to semi since the election is ongoing and page will need to be updated in the future. Eluchil404 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

      This page was unprotected as per my request here on 27 November, but another admin has since re-added move protection without my knowledge. Please remove the move protection so that I can archive my talk page. —Psychonaut 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected -- Steel 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      This article was sprotected last month during a period where User:Shortcut.Road was using several IP- and user-based sockpuppets to distrupt the article. The ending of informal mediation seems to have ended that, so it might be ok to unprotect it now. I for one have a few gramattical fixes I'd like to add.--67.101.66.26 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Not unprotected. Edit war still going on, probably a good idea to keep it protected. -- Steel 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Never vandalised, proactive protection is dubious. - 152.91.9.144 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Not unprotected. Templates are often protected to prevent vandalism. Perhaps full protection was a bit OTT but no need to change it now it's done. -- Steel 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Please unprotect this talk page. Koos Emek 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Please unprotect because the arguments for protection as written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pablo-flores#User_talk:217.98.20.20: are not true:

      • The Warning for IP User talk:217.98.20.20 was for other internet user and other article - this is IP number of large Internet provider and can be used by hundreds of users. Roo72 used this confusing situation for his own private interest
      • the article is locked on obviously POVED version - with accusation of fascism of democraticaly elected president and prime minister of european country without any single proof attached.
      • The user is known for his political edits - (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roo72)
      • and last but not least there is no revert war because only (Roo72)'s edits was the reverts - other edits introduced new facts or corrected the article.

      83.29.153.85 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Not unprotected -- Steel 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      This is UNprotection request, thanks 83.29.153.85 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I know, and I'm not unprotecting it. Make whatever point you have on the talk page. -- Steel 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      The protection violates the wiki-rules - have you read the rationale? 83.29.153.85 22:23, 13 December 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.

      Requesting the replacement of the second sentence in this template with

      Please do not add unreferenced negative [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographical information concerning living persons]] to Wikipedia articles

      as proposed without objection on Template_talk:Blp0#Removal_of_the_term_.22negative.22_from_this_template. John254 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Fulfilled/denied requests

      semi-protect Requesting semi-protection, anon's and new users. New userpage beset by those who take user's efforts less seriously than user does. Although I see this page eventually going to MfD in its present form, I have hopes of turning creator away from self-promotion to constructive editing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect until edit-warring subsides and disputes are resolved on talk page. -- Clevelander 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to edit war.--Húsönd 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      13:32, 10 November 2006 Radiant! (Talk | contribs) protected Wikipedia:Blocking policy (Semp for now - bit too much pointless vandalism here
      Protected for over a month, this page is on practically everyone's watchlist, no continuing reason for semi-protection.
      152.91.9.144 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      {{RFPP|nu}} - policy page changes should be by consensus, regular editors can still edit the page. Gnangarra 14:48, 12 December 2006
      I've responded to this at User talk:Gnangarra [2], and I'm replacing this request as neither Protection policy nor Semi-protection policy say anything about "regular editors." This page has not been the target of any sustained or serious vandalism, and it's on every dog's and god's watchlist anyway.
      152.91.9.144 06:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      semi-protect. Same situation as previous request. Van helsing 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Cacophony 09:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect against anonymous users. User:195.234.134.115 has a history of posting mainly slander, and seems uncapable of distinguishing NPOV from his own personal opinions. --Explendido Rocha 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Both articles Fully protected due to edit war. Additionally, both users blocked for violating the three-revert rule.--Húsönd 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      recent vandalism and bizarre photos added has meant the article is protected. Requesting un-protection for my reasons given at bottom of talk page ( lack of context in the central, now shortened history section). There was no dispute over content leading to its removal, just a suggestion of replication which I've discussed on the talk page.

      Jkl62 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected. Khoikhoi 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      thanks! Hopefully there'll be no more vandalism and need for protection on that page. Jkl62 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protect. On December 9th, I asked that this article be unprotected hoping that vandalism has ceased. But as soon as the semi-protection was lifted, IP editors began vandalizing once again. Which is why I am asking once again that this article be sprotected due to IP vandalism. Quasyboy 25:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected - vandalism return after previous unprotection Gnangarra 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank You, very much. And this time I will wait until semi-protection expires before I ever request unprotection again. Quasyboy 25:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


      Semi-protect due to high level of IP vandalism involving addition of various penis-related images to the article. This has been going on for some hours now. RC Patrol is getting sick of it. --Moralis 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      It was already Move protected so I Semi-protected. But then I noticed that it's today's featured article on the main page so I Unprotected it per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Egad. :-/ --Húsönd 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Move protection remaining, of course.--Húsönd 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. Article about my organization is being vandalized and reverted without additions to the talk section or additional articles.Benjaminmarsh 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined The article is not being vandalized, it is being edited by users who are improving it or enforcing Wikipedia's policies.--Húsönd 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      Requesting semi-protection - MASSIVE vandalism tonight against these three Atlanta Falcons players that appears to be a coordinated attack. BigDT 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected Michael Vick and Roddy White due to heavy vandalism. DeAngelo Hall has not been vandalized that much. Nishkid64 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      Requesting semi-protection. Frequent vandalism. This page should be unprotected when he is less in the news (after his expected trade, which will happen any hour)--Thomas.macmillan 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Once again, I am requesting semi-protection for Kofi Annan, which is being subjected to continuing vandalism by multiple anonymous users. I understand that the general rule is to exempt pages that are linked to from the main page, but I believe an exception needs to be made for this page.

      As I have said previously, it has been a magnet for ongoing vandalism -- often crudely racist in nature -- for months now. The most recent vulgarity was substituting a photograph of human testicles for the photo of Mr. Annan. Cute. Please protect this page -- for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, and yes, to spare us conscientious editors from the ridiculous waste of our time that could better be spent on constructive editing. Thank you! Cgingold 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. The policy refers to FA's only, so other items such as Kofi Annan usually can be protected without any problems. Nishkid64 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      Request for short-term semi-protection. This page has been the target of recent vandalism due to a controversy involving the subject. -- Qarnos 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. Borderline level of vandalism, not protecting due to the number of good faith edits going on. -- Steel 00:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for permanent semi-protection. This page, a very frequent vandal target, was temporarily semi-protected, but the problem returned upon the expiration of the protection. -- Mwalcoff 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected--Húsönd 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protect, preferably long-term. Page was previously s-protected, but in the week since it was unprotected it's been repeatedly vandalized, almost immediately after it was unprotected, roughly 28 times, mostly from IPs. --Jackhorkheimer 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected--Húsönd 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. High level of IP vandals // Laughing Man 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected -- Steel 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting semi-protection due to persistent vandalism. --JesseBHolmes 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined. Vandalism was coming from a single IP, and that was days ago. -- Steel 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect — daily IP vandalism. Bejnar 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting, again, semi-protection due to one or more anon users starting edit war under guise of being "responsible authority." Such an claim, coming from an anon user, seems bogus. Alternately, blocking all the IP addresses on the history list would also work. Quadra 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected. Edit warring, no reason to assume the anon's claim is bogus.. -- Steel 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect. Absurdly high level of IP vandalism. KarlBunker 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting full protection due to an edit war. John254 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      semi-protect — Persistent IP vandalism. Nearly all edits are vandalism or vandalism reverts. --Boson 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      Still needs to be repaired, first 3 or 4 lines contain false information.

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=94163218"