Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bruton4 (talk | contribs) at 05:52, 11 June 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.

    semi-protection. Reasons: 1. No violation to Wikipedia's Policy or vandalazation to this article has occurred during any of the edits that this article has under-gone from the IP user's

    2. It appropriate for this page to be un-locked due to the fact that Eagle Talons history can be easily intimidated by false statements that are currently in use in this article

    3. There are currently several false statements in the Eagle Talons article that has overwhelmingly made other user's edit this article due to the false statements used.

    4. The user's that edit this article are very well knowledgeable in the Eagle Talons history and have found several statements that are indelibly incorrect and needs to be changed immediately

    5. There is no dispute in this article, just false statements that were made correct by other IP user's, there has been no violation against Wikipedia's policy for editorial edits to articles or images, thus the full protection in use is adherent and un-necessary and was made by a 17 year old, changes were made correctly by professional eagle talon builders over 30 years old. Bruton4 05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Burton4Bruton4 05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi - multiple IP vandal edits over past 24 hours. Daggoth | Talk 04:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Jddphd 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel 04:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:86.154.129.201 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi - soapboxing. --32.60.78.135 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong page originally posted. --32.60.78.135 03:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - hardly. He/she said one thing, which you removed, and now they're requesting unblock. Daniel 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    salt - has been deleted several times as a non-notable drinking game (the last time was g12 as a copyvio), and it has been sourced; most sources I find are simply links to sites about drinking alcohol or about drinking games. So I request salting, noting that, when reliable sources appear with which to construct an article, it may be unsalted here or at DRV. --Iamunknown 03:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected - Alison ☺ 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection: Vandalism, Lots of vandalism coming from the end of the Series, might be smart to lock things down for a few days Wildthing61476 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by admin Coredesat. Semi-protected, full protection not necessary.--Húsönd 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection Please protect at the following edit: 23:46, 10 June 2007. Members DPeterson, Jmh123, Joie de Vivre, Squeakbox, and other members of Pedophilia Article Watch and I have performed a complete rehaul of this article, sourcing and reaching consensus on every section. As soon as we completed the work on 5 June, vandals began altering the article, and have not stopped since. At the moment, their claim is that child sexual abuse is not actually harmful to children. Vandals attacking by trying to force editors into violating 3RR to maintain consensus edit. One vandal is accusing an editor of sockpuppetry. Talk page shows complete history. Please protect this article; we are a group that includes a psychologist, a social worker, and a lawyer, and we worked hard on putting together an article that is well-sourced and not full of weasel talk. Thank you. -ZeroZ 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection, Banned user creating socks to revert to their version Kesac 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 days. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP originating sneaky vandalism with deceptive edit summaries. Please semi-protect for a long time. This has been an ongoing issue. Jehochman Talk 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Repeated vandalism from both anonymous IP vandals and vandalism-only accounts.--Mr Fink 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 5 days. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Semi protection: Vandalism, Article is becoming the subject of vandalism from different IP's The Sunshine Man 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined - No significant vandalism today. Nick 15:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Dominican Republic (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi protection Semi-protect Extreme personal attacks on the article as well as the utilizations by sockpuppets Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are" [1] ; , Am fighting back under all arms!No matter wat gets me blocked or Banned!But theirs always a way to do good even if everybody is against u!Theirs always Ip Address changes or Accounts change!so am going to deal with this sooner or later! [2] . IP Sockpuppets of banned user EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs) [3] , 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , 65.220.104.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , {{ipvandal|69.118.48.94} is consistantly placing in non npov opinion in the talk page and violating WP:Civility Page has already been protected. Requesting semi-protection at this time. 64.131.204.90 23:46, 9 June 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.

    unprotection Article was protected because of recent vandalism to page over speculation of the final episode. The final episode has aired and information needs to be placed within the article. I doubt that any notable speculation and vandalism will appear as their is no longer any doubt in the viewers mind as to what on screen deaths appear. There is no longer any reason to keep the article protected. The Filmaker 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't protected because of "recent vandalism to page over speculation of the final episode"; rather, because people were violating fair use policies (see this). Daniel 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection Reason given for full protection was "To do careful rewrite of controversial material per OTRS request". However, per WP:PROT this is not a legitimate reason to full-protect; there was no edit war, deletion review, nor is this a user's talk page. Full protection is inappropriate, and a re-write could be accomplished without such extreme measures. Content disputes between admins and other editors are not a reason to fully protect an article Haemo 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this is currently under OTRS scruitiny, and the protection is a valid application of protection. In this case, you do not have access to the correspondance (which is bound to confidentiality, per WP:OTRS). Until such a time as correspondance by the volunteers of the OTRS team to the subject have concluded, this article is under the scruitiny of the OTRS volunteers, which include the protector. Please discuss any request for unprotection with them. This request is declined. Daniel 04:16, 11 June 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.

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

    Hi, sorry for another request, I just come across these and, as a wikignome, wish that I could fix them! Could someone just put {{pp-usertalk}} on the talk page? Thanks, Iamunknown 03:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Alison ☺ 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Currently the {{indef}} template on the talk page puts the talk page Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, which will result it in being deleted sooner or later. User:TortureIsWrong, however, was around for a while; usually talk pages of indefiniitely blocked users are only deleted if the user was a short-lived vandal. Thus I request the text {{indef}} be changed to {{indef|category=}}{{pp-usertalk}}. Thanks, Iamunknown 17:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Alison ☺ 08:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) --Iamunknown 08:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The /doc transclusion is in the includeonly tags, which means it doesn't transclude on the template page and breaks everywhere else. Fix please. -Amarkov moo! 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined by someone else. – Steel 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection Repeated and tedious IP vandalism. SingCal 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Seems to be mainly by a single IP that has not vandalised since its last warning. If it continues it can be blocked, but I don't think protection is needed. WjBscribe 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Protected to prevent OrphanBot form adding no source tags. Inappropraite use of protection. hbdragon88 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined You're going to need to talk to El C (talk · contribs) about this one (he must be using it for something, looks like a problem with Template talk:Infobox Country) -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unprotected it and changed the tag to {{wikipedia-screenshot}} which will not provoke the bot to mark it as unsourced. —freak(talk) 19:37, Jun. 10, 2007 (UTC)


    salting. The article's talk page is supposed to be salted but it's not and people keep using it as a soapbox then it gets deleted but not salted. SakotGrimshine 18:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection: Dispute, There appears to be a dispute at this article. Navou 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert war. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection - coordinated effort from anon ips to vandalize the article -- Keskitsune

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to request this page be unprotected. Administrator FloNight has introduced bias into the article by removing factual, sourced information in the article (see the original controversy section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_murder&oldid=135854549 ), removing pictures of both the victims of the crime and the suspects in the case, then locking the article to prevent anybody else from making the article less biased. I'd consider this an abuse of her administrator powers, from what I understand wikipedia is supposed to be democratic for the masses, not a dictatorship to tout the opinions of a handful of privileged users.

    I'd like to request that the page be unprotected so that FloNight's bias can be removed by re-inserting factual, sourced information, furthermore I'd like to see FloNight's administrator powers reviewed for possible abuses in this and other articles. Chesspieceface 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, OTRS related protect (basically one level under WP:OFFICE). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide any insight into why the action was taken to add bias to this page?'
    Chesspieceface 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not privy to OTRS related stuff, but I'd assume that User:FloNight is (but OTRS is pretty tight-lipped). My best guess is that someone who has some connection to the event made a confidential complaint (it's how OTRS works), and FloNight responded to it by trying to rewrite the controversial material. Beyond that I can't help you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 17:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks Royalguard11 Chesspieceface 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection - suffering frequent vandalism from anon ips. -- Beardo 15:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protection or Semi-Protection for 1 month Page went into semi-protection, but the Edit wars continued [4] . There are still 3rr violations [5] . Unprotection (which will occur in a few hours) will simply unleash the full fledged edit wars that was going on from multiple IP address' from before. 64.131.204.90 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, no edits since protection expired. Re-request if problems start. – Steel 15:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This page has been protected for over a month allegedly due to a vandal using old sock puppets to add copyrighted material to the page. It was unprotected on the 7th of June and then re-protected the same day with the assertion that it was being vandalized. The purported vandalism were 2 edits made by anonymously IP's. The first edit here [[6]] seems to be copyrighted material from here [[7]] though itself not vandalism. The second edit was this one [[8]] which isn't vandalism at all and actually improved the article. Both edits were reverted and then the page was re-protected. The first edit should have been assumed to be good faith and the second edit, well there was nothing wrong with the second edit. I have discussed the page being unprotected with those who have kept it protected but no leeway was made [[9]]. This page simply doesn't meet the criteria for being fully protected. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - one look at the prot log will explain - Alison ☺ 08:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it's not the case. There is no "continued" vandalizing by anyone. Please see what I said above for an explanation. When it was temporarily unprotected and then re-protected there was no such vandalism simply someone adding copyrighted material and someone fixing the formating of the page. Pages can't be kept protected from all editing for this reason.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that simple, unfortunately. It's related to Verdict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), rampant sock-puppetry and the repeated posting of bogus requests here for unblocking via his sock accounts. The disruption is far from over and I note that the protecting admin, User:Yamla has already declined and has left a detailed rationale on the talk page - Alison ☺ 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - per User_talk:Alison#Brock_Lesnar_page_protection. - I'm suggesting another admin review this - Alison ☺ 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At most this page should be semi-protected not fully protected. The user who vandalized that article initially which resulted in it's protection also vandalized Dave Bautista and Franklin Lashley however neither have been hit with frequent vandalism and both are semi-protected. It doesn't meet the criteria for full protection as outlined here WP:PROT, but possibly semi-protection. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it up with Yamla. – Steel 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, you have. Declined then. – Steel 15:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection due to constant attempts at IP vandalism by both anonymous users and also members with usernames.

    Semi-protected One week. No need for full protection Peacent 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection due to high level of IP vandalism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected One week Peacent 14:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection Full protection: Dispute, A bunch of IPs and users have continued to add images of highly modified cars as well as making other fancrufty edits, has acaused a large edit war on the page. I requested semi protection in order to stop this, but it turns out that the accounts have enough edits that they get around the semi protection and are able to get past it and keep reverting back to their edits. I am now requesting full protection in order to finally solve this dispute. Karrmann 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected edit war by established users Peacent 11:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, IP Vandal has not ceased to blank her pages even past a block, so I'm afraid it's going to continue after. Evilclown93(talk) 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected One week Peacent 11:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Etacar11 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, IP Vandal has not ceased to blank her pages even past a block, so I'm afraid it's going to continue after. Evilclown93(talk) 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined vandalism by one anon, already blocked Peacent 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full - Continuous edit war. Protect until the dispute is resolved. Similar dispute on Telugu language also. --(Sumanth|Talk) 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. WinHunter (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=137399040"