Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected or unprotected, including page-move protection.
If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and sign the request) at the TOP of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Also, make sure you specify whether you want the page to be full protected or semi protected. Before you do so, however, consult Wikipedia:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection. Wikipedia:Semi-protection is the policy that covers semi-protection of heavily vandalised pages.
Only consider protection as an option when it is necessary in order to resolve your problem, and when the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection.
Generally, Full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. Full protection is also used on templates that are frequently used and not in need of frequent edits (this includes most editorial templates; see Wikipedia:High-risk templates).
After a page has been protected, it is listed on Wikipedia:List of protected pages with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. Admins do not revert back to previous versions of the page, except to get rid of vandalism.
{{Editprotected}} can be used to request edits to protected pages as an alternative to requests for page unprotection.
| This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.
If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately. |
| Administrators: When you have fullfilled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and, optionally, remove the request; leaving a note on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user(s) requesting protection might be good idea as well.
If the entry is being used for edit-warring or content disputes or contains personal attacks or uncivil comments, or any other unrelated discussion, it will be removed from this page immediately. |
Here is the log page if users want to look up whether or not pages have been protected.
Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests lists current protection edit requests.
How to list a page
Note: Always use ==== headings. Do not use anything else.
| Namespace | Link to page | Link to talk page |
|---|---|---|
| Generic | {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} | {{lnt|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} |
| Article | {{la|ARTICLE}} | {{lat|ARTICLE}} |
| Template | {{lt|TEMPLATE}} | {{ltt|TEMPLATE}} |
| Wikipedia | {{lw|PAGE}} | {{lwt|PAGE}} |
| User | {{lu|PAGE}} | {{lut|PAGE}} |
| Category | {{lc|PAGE}} | {{lct|PAGE}} |
| Image | {{li|IMAGE}} | {{lit|IMAGE}} |
| Portal | {{lp|PORTAL}} | {{lpt|PORTAL}} |
Current requests for protection
Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.
Full-protectionCan you please disable edits permanently to my archive page? Thanks Anwar saadat 11:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Full-protection This very active page often sees four or five incidents a day, Minglex and other vandals continue to change the format of the page when the discussion agreed that this would not happen. Page was protected and edit war started straight away when this was lifted. 147.114.226.173 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note that this is the same anon vandal who keeps re-introducing unsourced material into Iain Lee with deceptive edit summaries. Frankly I'm about to lock the Clive Bull article down to Minglex' version until the anons can explain exactly why the "article doesn't flow as well". --Syrthiss 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not a vandal and also do not like the new version by Minglex. This was discussed at length in the discussion page and Minglex agreed not to put in the changes. Why should be be held to ransom? I call for the page to be protected in the version agreed by the majority in the discussion page 66.90.101.225 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection This very active page often sees four or five incidents a day, and always by folks who are new, anonymous, or are using shared domains. Despite controversies and some edit warring, several users are making an effort to raise the article to FA status; you can see that a number of users have acted good watchdogs, but I'm wondering if this page may warrant permanent semi-protected status. Similar situation as World War II. Thanks for your kind attention. BusterD 05:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Recently murdered rapper. His article is being hit by IP users. Needs Semi protection for a couple days. youngamerican (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-Protection, I know I've requested it before, but I'm annoyed at the amount of reverting me and fellow editors have done, since 1/1/06 has had to be reverted 6 times to get rid of vandalism, from people who actually admit to being students at SJDs, if Protection not possible, please advise me futher as to what to do, Thanks for your help
Danny 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nowhere near enough vandalism. Just revert, as annoying as it is. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection. Frequent vandalism to the point where 90% of the edit history is reverting vandalism, making it difficult to find the history of constructive edits. Drogo Underburrow 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection. There's a revert war going on at this entry being conducted almost wholly by IP addresses. It looks like an organized attempt using either socks from different computers or meats: about a dozen reverts today. Semi-protection will end the silliness but allow . Bucketsofg 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection due to constant blanking without explanation by same IP address.--Joe Jklin 05:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- IP blocked, no other action needed Sceptre (Talk) 12:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Full-protection due to edit warring. I believe my version should be on top because I've taken because it presents both views, but protecting the page is more important at this time. AucamanTalk 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Protected at whatever version it was on when I protected it. --Golbez 01:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.
Thanks for protecting my user page in my absence. Now that I am back, can you please unprotect it? May all the bootilicious angels and virgins bless you with a thousand wives and children. Anwar saadat 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It was unprotected by Borghunter a few minutes ago. I just removed the sprotect template from it. --Syrthiss 13:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This article was improperly protected. A single user is trying to insert a disputed tag into the article, but has thus far failed to ever mention what specific facts he is disputing. He appears to be disputing the factual content of a verifiable quote. e.g. Gary Scarff said, "Such and such...." and this user says "Such and such...." is untrue. However that is not a proper use of disputed tag. It is provable and verifiable that Scarff said, "Such and such...". Its not up to editors to do the research to figure out if "Such and such..." is a true statement.
On the talk page and from edit summaries, there are currently at least four users that disagree with the person putting in the disputed tag. There are zero users in support of this user. I have written my compromise text on the talk page and I have participated in a mediation (for whatever reason this guy wouldn't talk on the discussion page). Please remove the protection so that this article can be improved. Vivaldi 09:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There should be no dispute on this page. Inoformation added to this page was factual, referenced, contained no POV, and was coninutally erased by one user. Page protection was added without explaination, however, this user conitnues to be able to edit page! The user, Bkwillwm has been asked to add information, rather than removing it and refuses to change this or discuss it, other than to say information which may cast Sanders in a negative light is POV and must be removed, only positive comment should be allowed. This IS clear POV. Please remove page protection and block user. Straightinfo 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - User has been edit warring prior to registering an account. I think that keeping the current protection for a little while might allow some consensus on the talk page. --waffle iron 04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism seemed to start when it was announced he was placed on a 60 day suspension. The vandalism seems to have stopped now. My earlier request to have this unprotected was removed for some unknown reason, with nothing to show for it in this page's history. The Phenomenal One 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! :-) The Phenomenal One 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism was the result of a post about Wikipedia on the game's forums. The post is now gone, and players will have lost interest in vandalism. Dara Barkhordar 18:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would rather wait a little longer on this on.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Editors involved in edit war have given up on opposition; Article has information that needs a citation tag and is essentially being held hostage to retain administrator's view point. Admin also continues to actively edit this page, as he did before protection, despite protection policy. Ckessler 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you feel an administrator is abusing his buttons, take it to WP:ANI. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
needed unprotection to deleted prayers from encyclopedical contain. They ARE 100% NPOV: how an Islamic or Buddhist reader could consider them? Attilios 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Rachel Corrie (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Rachel Corrie|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rachel Corrie page is unprotected, but the Talk:Rachel Corrie page is not. This makes it not possible for unregistered users to discuss planned or completed changes to the main Rachel Corrie page.
- Done. It has been over two weeks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.
You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection.