Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nshumeyko (talk | contribs) at 04:53, 12 January 2007 (→Current requests for protection). 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 of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.

    ====Ernst Hirsch Ballin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)====) Semi-protect Lots of IP vandalism due to the Jim Jones song "Ballin" Nshumeyko 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Another page recently unprotected and once again inundated by IP vandalism. -- Beardo 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect Decent edit warring and possible sockpuppetry by users, was protected until today, down grade to semi produced new edit warring. Suggesting protection until possible sockpuppetry case is solved. --Wildnox(talk) 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Last protection removed 23 December, the page is plagued with vandalism - many IPs. Those working to restore the page are stumbling, and missing things. In the last week 65 edits of which only about three weren't reverted. Can't this be left semi-protected a bit longer this time ? -- Beardo 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Too much vandalism has been done with this article. Moreover, I've been waiting for a response to an HTML comment I put in the "Usage" section of the article that no one has paid attention to. Georgia guy 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Page under attack from multiple IP's. Presumably from a forum posting. Fan-1967 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect or maybe short-term full protection your call. Page is being hit by some particularly obnoxious vandals today, blanking and obscenity, multiple times, different people, some are registered users. Maybe just let things quiet down today and then semi protect for a week or so? Will see if we can put on some vandal warnings too. <sigh> Montanabw 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There was only a little bit of it and that was a few hours ago now. -- Steel 23:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - I don't know why, but for some reason anon users like vandalising this page. Since the page was unprotected on Janurary 8th, it has had massive vandalism, including:

    [1] [2]

    Blanking [3] [4] [5] [6]

    Slander [7] [8] [9]

    --Ted87 22:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - heavy vandalism today Corpx 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 22:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Heavy Anon IP vadalism (I happen to actually know this person in real life --Shaul avrom 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined as there is not enough activity to warrant protection at this time. I have watchlisted the page, however. Cowman109Talk 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Excessive and repeated vandalism by anonymous IPs inserting web-affiliate links in place of the official website in the "External links" section. Valrith 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Excessive vandalism involving false material. -24.92.43.153 20:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Nishkid64 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection-Heavy vandalism.Hondasaregood 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection, full protect for move (due to page move vandalism). Patstuarttalk|edits 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect - anonymous users are still vandaling this article. --Running 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 21:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection stale revert war devolving into WP:POINT reversions. I suggest the protecting adminstrator disregard the state of the article when protecting and either revert to a random version or to the version that is NOT the current version (regardless of what the version is) in the hopes that this will discourage future edit warring (as the individuals who "win" the edit war will thus "lose" the much longer protected period.) I am uninvolved. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Nishkid64 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anonymous (IP address only) user regularly attempts to sneak links to commercial site Mesolimbo 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection The page is currently undergoign a lengthy discussion and some users are ignoring this and are making there own unilateral edits to the page and these are then bieng reverted. This is not a full scal war yet but I can smell it coming so i Think the page must be protected to force people to come to the discussion rather than just steam roller the page.--Lucy-marie 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If this page is protected it should not be protected to Lucy-marie's version. There is a previous version of the page that was agreed by consensus, Lucy-marie disagrees with this version. Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, however Lucy-marie repeatedly ignores the discussion (which includes multiple editors who say the version agreed by consensus should stay while discussion is ongoing), and repeatedly reverts to her version which has no consensus at all. One Night In Hackney 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Not much of an edit war as of yet. Request protection again if users keep reverting each other.--Húsönd 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested as the article is regularly vandalized by anonymous editors. --ElKevbo 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Current level of vandalism doesn't require protection.--Húsönd 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Heavy vandalism from multiple IPs recently. Over 4 reverts in 2 hours. Diez2 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    Unprotect. Having a protected Main Page is contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia project. Obama19 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected. Do you know how much vandalism we would get if the page is unprotected? Nishkid64 21:19, 11 January 2007 (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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    'Semi-protect'. The latest 50 edits in the history consist of only reverts and vandalism. Very pressing matter. bibliomaniac15 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect due to the fact that it's today's feature article (and therefore very easily targeted by anon vandals). -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. It's not on the Main Page anymore, and we usually don't protect Today's FA. Nishkid64 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - very much vandalised article. Corpx 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Natalya 01:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect Heavy vandalism from multiple IPs, including 208.51.236.165, 164.106.22.216, 75.70.156.78, and possibly others. All unregistered users. Request protection from edits by unregistered users and possibly new users. Thanks! HolyT 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Please watchlist and revert for now. Nishkid64 00:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. To prevent the escalation of the current edit war. There's been discussion of the debated issue at the article's talk page. However, efforts to reach an agreement are being thwarted by the constant reverting going on. —LestatdeLioncourt 13:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected--Húsönd 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection An edit war has been going on from IP adresses. At least two registered members agree on how it should be, and the unregistered member keeps reverting to their own version. Joltman 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 14:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Repeated vandalism from IP addresses. Show has been popular on VH1 and more vandals will vandalize article. Bearly541 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 14:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotect. The page itself was actually semi protected as an alternative to blocking an IP. Although the feud continued for a while thanks to a registered member, all parties of that side of the debate have since buggered off and haven't done a damn thing to improve the article. Perhaps an anon user has the final sources needed but either way, protection is unnecessary now. I would also like to add the Sonic game characters template to the list(currently fully protected) because it's been a LONG time since anyone's said anything as an entirely new template was agreed upon. Also, please try to get to this ASAP. The Bots keep pruning it, and this is about the 4th time I've listed these pages with no response!GrandMasterGalvatron 13:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected --Robdurbar 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. A full blown edit war has been brewing for months. Two new editors User:Mobile 01 (less than 500 edits), User:LucaZ (less than 50 edits--exclusively has edited only too Firestone) began spliting the criticism sections and moving them. User:LucaZ moved one of the controversy sections to a new article.User:Mobile 01 has moved another section to an existing article, User:Mobile 01 has replaced all of the referenced material with material from Firestone corporation and unreferenced material which is, in my opinion only favorable to Firestone. I spent several hours tonight going through trying to restore User:LucaZ and User:Mobile 01 deletions of referenced material, most of which meet the five pillars of wikipedia, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV. It will take several hours more to restore all this referenced material which has been removed. I will waste several more hours and build the edit history on the talk page.

    I have asked for Wikipedia:Third opinion

    I am also going to start the process of a straw poll, trying to build consensus.

    I don't want any 3RR etc. I am about to launch a WP:PAIN complaint if the wikipolicy violations on the talk page continue. Please protect this page ASAP to avoid a edit war.

    Best wishes, Travb (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected --Robdurbar 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. The article became FA two days ago, and has been suffering many anon sandboxes and vandalism from a wide range of IPs, especially since the FA. I don't think that the IPs are related, but it is still disruptive all the same :) Baristarim 10:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Robdurbar 11:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested The page has been undergoing persistent vandalism from multiple IP's for about an hour — Opelio 08:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Robdurbar 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection The page was unprotected six hours ago, and the anonymous IP vandal (that has gotten it semi-protected twice already along with several other pages) has already begun. The vandalism includes the message "You fuckheads can diss me all you want but I'm still gonna put this shit up!...Have fun blocking my ip you faggots. I have a number of computers and I can change my ip at will so I will be back!!!" (After having one IP blocked, he/she returned with a second.) —ShadowHalo 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Robdurbar 11:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection. Earlire this week I requetsed and was approved semi-protextion for AVR Butterfly. I would like to request the same for Atmel AVR. An anonymous/unregistered user keeps adding links to his own group of websites. A number of these websites violate WP:EL. As they take a lot of material from AVRFreaks.net a semi-official community from Atmel. These links also violate WP:EL as some of them have dead links and some are links to discussion forums. Attempts have been made on the discussion page of both articles to start a civilised disccussion. The unregistred user (who I'm assuming is the same person) has made personal attacks on the dissussion page in an uncivilised manner rather than trying to discuss why he feels the links are appropiate. I hope semi-protection would at least force the unregistered user to register and perhaps enable a better discussion. As well as semi protection for Atmel AVR I would like to enquire if or when AVR Butterfly will be protected. Sorry to be a bit of a bore on the last one but I'm getting fed up of having constantly revert the same edits and being abused on the talk page(s). User:Rehnn83 12:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - on Butterfly. There's no need to protect when there's one problem account. User:Vwollan blocked for a week for continued spamming. If he continues to spam on return (or creates socks), notify me and I'll block him indefinately. --Robdurbar 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected - Atmel AVR semi protected.
    --Robdurbar 11:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    There is unwarranted restriction of users giving their input at that page despite the lack of a consensus for its many controversial statements.--Sparrow 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection - edit warring between CharMeck (talk · contribs) and 150.216.108.128 (talk · contribs). The former I perceive as generally being against this person ("Under Pat McCrory's watch, Charlotte was recently named the 8th most dangerous city in the United States."," Many local Republicans refer to Pat McCrory as a Republican In Name Only") and the former seems to be for him ("with both successes and failures" changed to "with successes"), and edit summaries say things like "If your not ashamed of your political beleifs, keep them on the page" and "Your and idiot and a ultraconservative." GracenotesT § 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Both users have been blocked for violating WP:3RR, and will be warned to discuss rather than revert. -- Natalya 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The Art Institute of California - San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection - Resubmit: Using the more recognized wiki entry which includes the word "The" which is why it looks like there hasn't been recent activity. article has been experiencing a vandalism from anonymous IP.Vgpclub 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. The article was being tested by one IP user. I don't think this really warrants protection. Nishkid64 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - article has been experiencing a vandalism spree of anonymous IP vandals.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Multiple vandal edits from anon IP addresses. Rehevkor 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There hasn't been that many vandalism attacks lately, and it is a heavily watched article. I think it's fine. Nishkid64 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. There seems to be a lot of recent vandalization activity from numberous different IP addresses. -- GJD 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Nishkid64 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. A lot of nonsense edits from anon IP's (that I suspect are all within the school itself). Fan-1967 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The article has been exceedingly reverted by an anon, utilizing the advantage of a changing IP (AOL), carefully enough not to violate 3RR. Although there is no direct confirmation that this user is yet another sockpuppet of Afrika paprika, he shares an identical pattern of edits (as well as the very same altering IP chain). This might be a new battleground, since all the other articles have been semi-protected - and immediately after they were, he (if in truth is Afrika paprika) opened new fronts. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. I think it is Afrika paprika. The IP range of paprika's socks are almost identical to that of the vandal at the article. Nishkid64 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. The article has been exceedingly reverted by an anon, utilizing the advantage of a changing IP (AOL), carefully enough not to violate 3RR. Although there is no direct confirmation that this user is yet another sockpuppet of Afrika paprika, he shares an identical pattern of edits (as well as the very same altering IP chain). This might be a new battleground, since all the other articles have been semi-protected - and immediately after they were, he (if in truth is Afrika paprika) opened new fronts. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected per sockpuppetry of Afrika paprika. Nishkid64 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, vandalized 12+ times by various anons in last 24 hrs. Accurizer 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. was protected before, and when they unprotected it the vandalism resumed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Nishkid64 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection. Many templates are protected, and this template has experienced periodic IP vandalism that is affecting many pages. Dar-Ape 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Only high-use templates are indef-protected. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=100162319"