Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.218.222.86 (talk) at 10:27, 1 May 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.

    {{la|Rafida}

    Full protection. Article is already semi-protected and edit-warring continues. 24.218.222.86 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Images are highly used on the project, and 2 are already protected on wikimedia commons. Suggest full protection on this project as well. Chrisch 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection (indefinite) to counter vandalism, please. --Kanjy 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Alison. --Kanjy 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. This is my third request since previous protection was removed. Last request denied 4/24. Since that time there has been repeated vandalism on a daily basis as follows: 4/26 (1 instance, multiple changes); 4/27 (2 instances), 4/28 (3 instances), 4/29 (1 instance), 4/30 (11 instances). Vandals come from numerous IPs, and include deletion of tags, sections & page; insertion of garbage text, frivolous text, & profanity; and deliberate misspelling of words throughout the article. Armarshall 05:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection - A few IP's (although I suspect are the same user) continue to add immature vandalism to a few WWE diva's pages. They have continued to do so for almost a month. - Deep Shadow 05:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protect. I have attempted to write a balanced edit that shows majority and minority opinion. Unfortunately one user believes that only the minority side should be included and continues reverting even past 3RR (and admittedly I have flirted with 3RR myself.) Other users appear to be supporting the balanced edit. 66.177.5.252 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.: blocked User:Ice9Tea for 48 hours for violating 3RR despite warnings. Protection should hopefully be unnecessary. Krimpet (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Pretty heavy anon vandalism on a daily basis. Semi-protected for a while early this year, prot lifted in late February. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Riana ऋ 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Dsmart-3000ad (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full protection - We need to get this person to stop abusing the {{unblock}} template using reasons filled with legal threats. TML 21:37, 30 April 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.

    It's the first of May and Lashley have been protected for a while I thought it would be a good time to unprotect the article and see how it goes. Govvy 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been locked since March, now it´s May. BrockSolid

    User talk:DavidYork71 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Cascading full protection is currently applied; while not as much of a problem as cascading semi-protection, it's still annoying. Decrease to full protection please. -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Krimpet (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Been fully protected due to vandalism for over a MONTH :( Plz unprotect or downgrade. Also going through afd, it needs the notice and a chance to clean up. Milto LOL pia 02:06, 1 May 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.

    Requesting the placement of template:sockpuppeteer on this page per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold. John254 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like unnecessary branding, to me. What is the predicted benefit of such an action? Dmcdevit·t 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The template would assist users in identifying new sockpuppets of ChrisGriswold. John254 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined: ChrisGriswold has stated that he is concerned of troubles that may result in using his real name as his username, which is a very legitimate concern. While his recent sockpuppetry is clearly unacceptable, the open ArbCom request will decide what course to take in this incident; branding him with this template would only cause problems. Krimpet (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the replacement of the language "unreferenced negative" with "unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial" for consistency with the provisions of WP:BLP regarding the removal of unreferenced information, and to avoid misunderstandings with users who do not regard the unreferenced information they are adding to articles as negative. John254 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. – Steel 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent edit war was begun due to questions about whether or not Scientology actually published or referenced a forged Naval service document when describing L. Ron Hubbard's career in the US Navy. I have found references that current Scientology webpages are still using the document. I don't know if the block should be lifted yet, so instead I'm asking that the references be added by an uninvolved sysop. To make this as easy as possible for anyone who wishes to help, here is a link to what I want to change: L. Ron Hubbard#After the war. And this is what I'd like replaced: [citation needed] tag with <ref>Description of Hubbard's service/awards from news.scientology.org as a rebuttal to a Boston Herald article: [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page10fb.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11a.htm]</ref> minus the nowiki tags of course. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined That citation does not directly support the claim He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation" as the claim is being presented by the author, nor Hubbard, and as it is primarily an attack on Joseph Mallia, including that reference would not be conducive to maintaining a neutral POV on the article. —dgiestc 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may have missed what Joseph Mallia was writing about. He was writing about the truth of Hubbard's claims to have been a "war hero", and the site referenced is refuting the claims made by Mallia. In doing this they refer to a fake document indicating Hubbard won 21 awards including a Purple Heart with "palm".

    The real form in question was made public after a FOIA request and is very different than the one referenced by the CoS site. Since the links show clearly what the CoS claims, the two accounts should both be discussed for the sake of NPOV. Anynobody 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"

    Also the above statement was not Mallia's statement it was whichever editor here that wrote it:

    1. Malia writes article
    2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards [1]
    3. Real naval record comes out: [2]
    4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: [3].

    You seem to think it was Malia who said Hubbard won 21 awards, it's the other way around. Anynobody 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-read my response. My reading comprehension is fine. If you want to make this change, propose it on the talk page, gain the consensus of other editors, and then make a new request here. —dgiestc 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of clarity, at this point I'm not saying you have to make the change. However your response does not acknowledge any of the other sources cited above by me or those already referenced in the article itself. The links I added here, that you say is an attack on Malia, are claims made by Hubbard's biographer that he earned 21 medals according to this document: [4]. Since the biographer/CoS are citing the above document, it represents what they maintain Hubbard's war record was. Now that the Navy version has come out, and it's different, both versions should be on the article for readers to judge for themselves. Again you don't have to make the change, but please explain your original answer because saying it would be POV and doesn't support the contention seems to indicate either you or I may not understand all the relevant information. Anynobody 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support addition of citation
    • Anynobody seems to have spelled this out very well, with reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • It's a fine source for representing Scientology's position, but it's neither written by nor quoting Hubbard, which is the claim Anynobody has proposed it be added as a citation for. It can certainly be used as a citation for Scientology's claims, just not for claims ascribed to Hubbard personally. —dgiestc 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the place to request it, but... I'm looking for an extremely specific edit: One of the headers reads: "Shadow Shuriken Imitation Technique." It was actually changed to that from "Shuriken Shadow Imitation Technique" here, immediately before the dispute took place, and nobody caught it until after the full-protect. Several pages link directly to that header, so having the wrong header for an entire week will mess that up. A desire for this edit is expressed at the bottom of Talk:List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Summoning: Impure World Resurrection, though nobody has really brought up requesting a protected-page edit. You Can't See Me! 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this article was fully-protected only yesterday. It's important to discuss/notify other editors of your requested changes. Can you request this on the article's talk page with {{Editprotected}}, please? - Alison☺ 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the correction of the following typographical errors:

    invstigate => investigate

    soly => solely

    Thanks. John254 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- zzuuzz(talk) 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Request an edit as per the section "Bias" on the articles talk page. The dispute that required the protection should be largely resolved by the edit proposed as it has been agreed to by one of the disputing parties (and by one other editor on my own talk page) and not replied to by the opposing party (nor opposed by any other editor) since the compromise was suggested on 15 April.
    2. The article page has a semi protected tag but is actually fully protected. This should be corrected by either making the page semi protected or changing the tag. Cheers Wayne 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - Phaedriel - 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protect. One IP has been constantly vandalizing it for over two hours now. See the history logs. I think semi-protection for a couple days would be good. Chris Nelson 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 days, hopefully that's all it needs. Please don't ask people to 'get a life' while reverting vandalism, I know it's tempting :) – Riana ऋ 04:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection - On an episode of WWE Raw tonight, a wrestler joked about challenging for the title at Wrestlemania 24 (which is 11 months away) and the page has since been chaotic with IPs adding that wrestler and saying he will be in the main event. It violates the no spoilers and match speculation rule. -- Scorpion0422 03:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 1 week, hopefully that's all it needs. – Riana ऋ 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 02:11:17, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. It's primarily one anon who has been blocked right now for their vandalism. Just watchlist and revert. bibliomaniac15 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Constant vandalism by a person or group of people making liable and inappropriate edits. Aamangaeditor 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect for 1 week. Heavy anon vandalism in the past week. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected ~ Arjun 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Full protection Abuse of the unblock template by requesting an unblock 3 times. The decline template says not to request again but the user does so. Funpika 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I've warned the user that further abuse will lead to protection, come back if it happens again. John Reaves (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    It has been a month and a half since these pages have been put on protection. One party to the small conflict resulting in protection has agreed to back off and the other party has completely disabled his/her acount. Protection is no longer necessary. Emperor001 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection We're still getting anon. IP vandalism, even though we're supposedly semi-protected. Help? --Adamrush 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Page was only protected for two weeks. The vandal edit today was reverted by another IP. Lets give it a go without protection. Make another request if IP vandalism returns to the levels prior to protection. WjBscribe 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection (permanent). This seems to be a popular target, with a majority of the edits over the last two months being vandalism. Requesting semi-protection just to avoid the bulk of it. derrick 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I don't think vandalism occurs frequently enough to lock out all editors without accounts. Vandalism is reverted fairly quickly and it often goes for ten days at a time without any at all. WjBscribe 00:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be semi protected, lots of anonymous IP and new user vandalism in the few days. Likely target over the NBA playoffs. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. To make a long story short, a group of users from the GameFAQs message boards got a hold of this article and have been having a little too much fun with it.

    NClark128 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected... geez, they sure did. 2 weeks should be long enough to outlast their attention span. Krimpet (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High traffic article; becasue it is featured it has been experiencing edits by vandals every few minutes.

    wickedxjade 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined: per WP:PROT, semi-protection generally should not be used on articles linked from the main page; it doesn't set a good example when we bill ourselves as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Vandal patrollers are always on the prowl in high-visibility articles like this. Krimpet (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection (permanent). This page gets almost daily vandalism from users who are not logged-in. Being a high profile topic this page gets a lot of traffic, and subsequently lots of vandalism (by many, who from their comments, appear to be dissatisfied with life...) CharlesC 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Krimpet (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect heavy anon vandalism. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect-Being flooded by the open proxy userpage vandal, which has constantly caused mayhem on User:Jimbo Wales, only way to stop the trouble is to protect. Eaomatrix 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=127385410"