Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GreatKing (talk | contribs) at 22:01, 6 May 2006 (→{{la|Capital Punishment}}). 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

    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.

    Semi-protection - Pages getting hit hard by suspected banned editor (Lightbringer, a long term abuser), using a shared IP 24.64.223.203. Since it's a shared IP, it's impractical to block the IP. Request semiprotection to cut down on the problem. WegianWarrior 21:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Banned editor using multiple IPs to avoid 3RR. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Csb123 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full protection This user repeatedly removes warnings from his talk page and/or adds nonsensical content to it, even after being blocked. 69.117.7.84 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection after deletion for this page, as it has been re-created five times recently after speedy deletion. It's a NN bio, and is re-created by the same user with the same text each times. The user also deletes the speedy notices. Pseudomonas 14:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, please append {{deletedpage}} to it. 69.117.7.84 15:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request full protection for Capital Punishment. Over the last few days, Wikipedians have been arguing over whether a death sentence is State-imposed or imposed by the judiciary. Because of this problem, people have constantly been chaging from "imposed by the judiciary" to "by the State" and vice-versa, etc. I believe that this article should be placed under full protection until there is a consensus on whether the death penalty is State imposed or imposed by the judiciary. Otherwise, this constant changing of the article will go on forever and ever.

    I hope that an administrator will act promptly because this situation is becoming tiring and annoying.

    Thank you


    GreatKing 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism doesn't seem frequent for now. Please continue reverting until mass vandalism makes it unfeasible. Saravask 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, will someone put this page under full protection, this seriously is getting out of hand until we solve this problem!

    GreatKing 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. This article is a mess. Myself and a couple of other users have been trying to keep it clean, but it is being continuously vandalized. It's the second time I suggest it should be protected, but I believe this time it's definitely appropriate. Nbettencourt 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism not concerted/frequent lately. Continue reverting. Saravask 23:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This is my first request for protection, but this article has been vandalized several times by unique IP addresses. Some of the vandalisms are racist, or involve saying things like "Allen Iverson is the man!!!!" etc. Bots and users (including myself) have to continually revert vandalisms. Be sure to look through the history to see the amount. --Scotsworth 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

    Continue reverting — only one problem edit today. Saravask 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. This is my first request for page protection, but this article has been vandalized several times by different IP addresses. Can it be protected from edits by anon users? Bubba73 (talk), 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) PS, it has been vandalized again since I first posted this. Bubba73 (talk), 22:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism is not concerted and frequent enough to warrant protection. Continue reverting. Saravask 23:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven times in less than 28 hours is not enough? What is the threshold? Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See this. Saravask 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    that's even worse. But what is the criteria? I have nearly 200 pages on my watchlist, and I need to check every edit by an anon user. I try to, but I can't. And all of that time I spend, I could be spending on improving Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] — Saravask 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so 10 vandal edits in less than 28 hours by four different IP addresses (three with two edits each, one with four edits) and one a known previous vandal isn't enough, by your criteria. At least one of them has vandalized other pages since then. When one of these vandals is found, does anyone go through all of their "contributions" and check them for vandalism? Bubba73 (talk), 03:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Been unprotected for less than 10 minutes and already under attack by cowardly anon sockpuppet vandalism--Capitalister 19:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection for today only. Today is Cinco de Mayo. The article is attracting far more attention than usual, including both named accounts trying to improve it and multiple vandals. The serioud contributors improving it make straight reversions significantly more difficult. Here are some of the past two hours vandalism reversions. Other vandalism has made it into the article with real edits and is having to be dug out by hand.

    Most are scatalogical vandalism, but some are racist. GRBerry 17:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected for a bit, at least until the kiddies go home for the weekend. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 18:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dont know if it matters, but Cinco de Mayo is linked from the main page (from on this day). --Syrthiss 18:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case User:Raul654/protection may interest you — my guess is that the principle applies just the same to other items displayed on the main page as well. Saravask 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The day is done, this request is now obsolete, please feel free to delete. GRBerry 09:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection

    The article for the Black Panther Party has been the target of repeated vandalism. It has been reverted 5 times today already and has had almost 50 non-substantive edits since the start of the month, often by anonymous users. Although most of these instances seem random, some have racial/political overtones [9] [10] or appear to be motivated by racism. [11] [12] [13] [14] - N1h1l 16:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's not enough concerted vandalism at the moment to justify a semiprotection. Just revert. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection

    For some reason this article on George Washington recieve vandalims at least once every day. Why? I have not the foggiest idea. Back on March 16, 2006 Wayward placed the article under semi-protection for about eight hours. Shortly after the Protection was lifted the vandalism resumed. On April 10, 2006, Eskog reinstitued the protection which last for four days. There was only one minor case of vandalism in that time on April 13th. On April 14, 2006, the protection was lifted by Splash. Little more then three hours later the vandalism returned and has continued every since. After a week long discussion with other editors on the Talk:George Washington, I request that this article be placed on semi-protection for the month of May. By then end of May students will be out of school and will have other things to do besides vandalize Wikipedia. (Steve 16:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    Not too bad today. Not enough concerted vandalism at the moment to warrant a semiprotect. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection An edit war seems to have broken out over this blogger's page, between people who wish to cite some well published criticisms of her, and people who feel that mentioning criticism is either not biographical, or requires a different character of criticism to be citable. Consensus was reached a week ago, after a long discussion about it, but new users keep coming to the discussion and starting edit wars.

    63.107.91.99 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on this. Blogs are not reliable sources. As you can see here: Xeni Jardin#Criticism section removal, I have repeatedly said that criticism is appropriate if it is properly sourced. This isn't. It's a section made up of links to anonymous blogs with no value. I'm rather surprised that you leaped at this claim by an IP editor without checking things out... especially given Wikipedia's current attitude to biographical articles and their libel problems. - Motor (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting there wasn't an edit war going on? 250 edits back and forth over the last 2 months seems like a lot to me. And why should an ip editor be discounted? Dstanfor 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources are explicit, and there is a large problem with biographical articles and libel on Wikipedia. For you to jump in and protect a page with a "Criticism" section that is full of unreliable sources was a mistake. Especially since I was making it quite clear on the talk page what was needed to sort out the problem: reliable sources... not just links to blogs full of anonymous users moaning. Considering how long the discussions of the contents of the criticism section have gone on, the fact that no-one can dig up any reliable sources to back up the contents should perhaps give some indication of quality of the claims. - Motor (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use this page to argue content disputes. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection This article is constantly under assault from vandals which seek to replace its content with remarks at best stupid, at worst foul and racist. I have nothing to do with this article, but as an RC patroller, it is kinda painful to revert it again and again. A semi-protection would do, because most of these vandals are IP. Thanks in advance :) -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 14:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not enough vandalism at the moment to warrant a semiprotection. Just revert. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection. I am watching a page on Wikipedia titled "Siamese Fighting Fish" and am having problems with an internet pest. This user is using a ghost IP and keeps editing the page to edit any sites that are in competition with him. There is a reference on the page for discussion forums and the vandal is deleting other sites that are also discussion forums and leaving his own on the page. May the page be protected? This user also has hacked into other internet sites that are in competition with him and may be a worry.

    IP address and user known as 124.168.1.209

    Thanking you Goldenblue 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected temporarily to stop edit warring. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Lots of vandalism in the past week or two. For some reason a lot of IPs are vandalising this page. Please protect so that only users who know what there doing can edit this. Yarnalgo 04:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. I've watchlisted this for nowVoice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Over 20 vandalism reversions necessary in last 48 hours. This page is an anonymous vandalism magnet. Please protect for multiple days. BusterD 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -- No Guru 04:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please semi-protection again. Lectonar unprotected after just 6 hours, since then 3 reversions of vandalism necessary in 3 hours. Can any admin just unprotect a valid protection request without going throught this process? That's not helping folks who are trying to help the page... BusterD 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they can, if they judge it to be proper. Three revisions in three hours isn't really enough to justify a semiprotection. Feel free to make a new report if the vandalism gets bad again. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to be troublesome, but if the original request was granted (at a vandalism rate of one incident every other hour), how could a current rate (of one incident per hour) not warrant page protection? Is page protection only for pages that are undergoing a radically higher rate of vandalism than usual? So if a page normally gets vandalized in an anonymous way a half dozen times each day, every day, that's not significant? There's very little edit warring here, it's just IP children expressing their power through destruction. Why should any user personally care to revert vandalism if admins undercut their own actions? Semi-protection seems designed for exactly this sort of problem. BusterD 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is page protection only for pages that are undergoing a radically higher rate of vandalism than usual? Yes and no. Whether the vandalism suddenly differs from the mean for that page is irrelevant. But if it's experiencing a radically high amount of vandalism as compared with what we normally see on Wikipedia in general, then maybe. Semiprotection was designed for articles experiencing so much vandalism that editors can't keep up with reverting it themselves, such as what was happening at George W. Bush, which was getting vandalized at the rate of practically every minute or less. It was humanly impossible to keep up with. This is nowhere near the amount of vandalism -- at present -- that editors can't handle. Being annoying isn't good enough, it has to be so much that editors watching that article can't handle reverting it themselves. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 18:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    So, may I pose a question? Some of us honorable editors have chosen to protect certain highly vandalized pages. Now, the vandals don't care anything about the 3 reversions rule, but we do. How many times do we have to keep reverting an article to get protection? We are afraid of being called on the 3 reversions rule, but the vandals could care less. We are trying to obey the rules, but the vandals aren't. I would revert an article that is being vandalized 12 times a day if allowed, but "I" don't want to be marked as a bad Wikipedian. Why can't the admins be a little more aggressive about protection or semi-protection when an edit war is going on? I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I have a real concern. Can someone answer my question, please? Thanks. -- Elaich 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If edits meet the definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism, the 3RR doesn't apply. If someone keeps inserting "poop" into an article, you may revert them as many times as needed. Of course, this doesn't apply in a content dispute. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 23:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. There has been this ongoing edit war where a user keeps adding a lengthy Republican rant to the Maryland page essentially accusing Marylanders of being communists. User insists that since it is "well-sourced," it is reasonable, despite the fact the sources are themselves highly questionable. -James Howard (talk/web) 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see that editing is furious enough right now to need protection. Try to use dispute resolution instead. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. I've noticed vandalism almost everyday from a IP putting fake Nicktoons on the page. --Caldorwards4 20:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's not enough vandalism to warrant semirpotection. Also please remember to place new requests at the top of this section. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    - Recently unblocked user. --Karatekid7 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - No reason for protection and nobody listed Guinness on Wikipedia:List_of_protected_pages when imposing it.agnus 15:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - Protection innappropriate, only requested to keep imposition of foreign names. Must be unprotected. Ketefan0, STOP VANDALISING THIS!! Yanito

    I have posted a suggested text on the talk page. Design 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Poll was made to end content dispute. Añoranza 07:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Want to access my talk page again, and have it open for others.

    MSTCrow 04:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user had been blocked from editing at Wikipedia, but he is no longer allowed to speak at his own talk page. Discussions at his talk page are reverted by User:SlimVirgin and his talk page is protected with no reason given. Please unprotect his talk page to allow discussions. DHN 02:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ====Brophy College Preparatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)==== this article has been subjected to a petty little fight between two rival editors and in the mean-time the lazy dummies that run this place just looked the article up because it was easy, making the rival editors' changes what anyone looking at the article will see. Maybe only allowing registered users to edit it would help, but it must be fixed as soon as possible to avoid misinformation from being cited or ditributed. UNPROTECT IT NOW!!! I SAID RIGHT NOW!!!!!!- (Betty Yves 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    Some typographical corrections to the entry are necessary. In reverting and/or cutting and pasting or moving text, multiple editors introduced some errors both before and after the page was "semi-protected"; e.g., omitting an author's name after the word "by" so that a blank space with no content appears. Some additional internal Wikipedia category links and other internal Wikipedia links (e.g., In a "See..." section perhaps) could improve this entry as they continue to become available. A somewhat-expanded, but still-very-brief list of references (authors, titles, place of publication, publication date, page numbers, e.g.) already used as sources of content in the entry appears necessary and desirable. [Right now, the secondary "Selected Published Sources" list is incomplete and therefore misleading. Material included in the entry came from those sources, yet they have been deleted.] Improvements to the content and style seem warranted further, while still adhering to Wikipedia:External links policies and guidelines. Residual Personal attacks written by (an) anonymous IP user(s) and violating Wikipedia:Editing policy still need to be deleted from the Talk page (and from its history) by an administrator or an editor who signs in. If one of you can delete them, please do so. It makes no sense to leave them in the record. They are offensive to all Wikipedia readers and diminish the tone of the entry and of Wikipedia. Thank you!

    [Note: My own IP address/log identities are not currently banned. The IP address was banned only for a "cooling off period of 24 hours" initially, and, then, through a computer glitch, briefly banned for part of another day, though I was away from my computer and not logging on to Wikipedia during most of that later period anyway.]--Gentility 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    If there are typos or other errors that need to be fixed, post them on the article's talk page and other editors will take care of them. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 13:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is still not possible to do, because of the "semi-protection." The talk page shows no "edit" feature. Please remove semi-protection from both Talk and the entry itself, so that the corrections can be done. Please remove all violations of Wikipedia policy on personal attacks from the current version of the Talk page and the "differences" linked material, which features those and other personal attacks, including false claims of intentional vandalism by an administrator. No vandalism was intended. Indeed, the initial editing by the administrator seemed like (also perhaps) unintended "vandalism" (as it were; its effect was the same--removing a great deal of useful information from an entry). This is no longer a "content dispute," but a request to unblock the entry (and its Talk page) so that important corrections and entirely-pertinent internal Wikipedia links can be added to improve it. Thank you again. [Sorry to have to edit this request and that it is so long; I have never been involved in any previous article or talk page "content dispute" or other kind of altercation on Wikipedia so I was wholly unfamiliar with many rather arcane Wikipedia terms and had to look up quite a number of them. I researched them as I went along.]
    Roy Dupuis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Again: 'Please Note: The IP address and identities are no longer banned, but the semi-protection remains and the Talk page is still not accessible to those with new identities and to those who do not "sign in" and post instead from IP addresses. Given the ongoing potential for identity theft and related abuses from some unscrupulous users of Wikipedia, some editors (including me) are wary of editing or creating new Wikipedia entries from a publicly-posted IP address or use their Wikipedia log-in identities in editing that entry due to too much risk of personal attacks.
    Wikipedia policy states:
    "Semi-protection should not be used as a purely pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism occurs, such as when certain pages suddenly become high profile due to current events or being linked from a high-traffic website. It is also not an appropriate solution to regular content disputes since it may restrict some editors and not others . . . . In the case of one or two static IP vandals [and they were not actually intentional vandals even if the word "vandals" was used to describe them] hitting a page, blocking the [alleged] vandal or vandals may be a better option than semi-protection."
    The entry dispute was initially a "content dispute," begun by an administrator's making excessive changes without warning and resulting (unnecessarily) in Wikipedia's blocking "one or two static IP" addresses (who were actually editing "in good faith"). Those administrative blocks have already expired, but the semi-protection still exists.
    It is time for a neutral, fair-minded, and scrupulous administrator (who does not him/herself engage in violating the 3RR) and who does not her/himself wield and misuse the term vandalism (as a personal attack on Wikipedians whose editing styles differ from hers) to remove all personal attacks from the Talk page and the semi-protection from both Talk and the entry, so that mistakes in the entry can be corrected and it can be further improved (following Wikipedia: Editing policy and in good faith). References throughout may be found via Wikipedia:Help--Gentility 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    No administrator stepped up to respond. But I have been able to make the typographical corrections and a few other substantive improvements. The page remains semi-protected, however.--NYScholar 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    Looking into the history of this page, there appears to me to be _one_ case of vandalism by an IP'd user. Every other user is either a current or former Wikipedian. While I find this story (both sides) fascinating, I don't feel the need to create an account to correct conjunctions. Can you either get the restriction lifted, or make more sense of why limiting access to anonymous users is an appropriate action for _one_ incident of _one_ anonymous user making _one_ BS change? Just curious -- 70.176.205.171 03:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free to ask Curps, the last protecting admin. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 13:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An agreement has been reached see the Enemies section of the Talk page. Hollosyt 19:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. Thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Un-protected. Its been a long enough while. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to have been agreement on the talk page about making this a disambig. --MilkMiruku 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    it redirects to gothic rock. see Talk:Gothic music for more info. --MilkMiruku 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh... sorry, I missed that. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unprotected. The dab page argument seems to be a good one, and nobody has argued against. Page has been protected long enough. If disputes rearise, it can be reprotected as a dab page. --kingboyk 07:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I should like to add a Zoomable version of The Last Supper. You can view it here: [15]. Thank You

    Un-protected. Its been a long enough while. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=51888586"