Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncsupimaster (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 27 October 2006 (→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.

    Regular vandalism by unregistered users. Requesting semi-protection. Ncsupimaster 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism, few people watchlisting. Requesting semi-protection. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous starter of a 3R war, is now defying an admin.'s request for peace, and restarting that war. Francis_Schonken has also knowingly filed a false 3R report against this contributor, and is otherwise harrassing my talk page. kindly fully protect this page, after restoring the non-Schonken version. Stevewk 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection of my user talk page. It has been target by new users and IP vandals related to a sockpuppet case. Thanks. Yankees76 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected[1] by Richardcavell. WinHunter (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My talk page as well? A new user just vandalized it. Thanks Yankees76 15:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection. Suspected sockpuppetmaster is creating new accounts to make constant reversions/disruptions. Yankees76 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection. Suspected sockpuppetmaster is creating new accounts to make constant reversions/disruptions to NPOV (see soybean as well). Yankees76 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection. Suspected sockpuppetmaster is creating new accounts to make constant reversions/disruptions to NPOV. Yankees76 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Request semi-protection. Suspected sockpuppetmaster is creating new accounts to make constant reversions/disruptions. Yankees76 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I am requesting semi-protection for this article the second time because IP vandalism lasted for several days. --Gh87 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am requesting semi-protection for this article for at least a few days. This is a politician with a recent scandal, and multiple times a day is being vandalized by anonymous ips. 20+ vandalisms in the last 24 hours. RBPierce 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support this request. Webb is a major candidate in a critical and very close Senate race, with millions of dollars going to be spent on (mostly negative) ads in the final two weeks of the race. Regular editors are spending much, if not most of their time, reverting such edits rather than improving or updating the article. (I am also requesting semi-protection for Webb's opponent, George Allen, for the same reason, below)
    The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit. Washington Post story, October 27, 2006

    I am requesting semi-protection for this article for at least a few days. Partly this is to avoid any charges of bias on the part of wikipedia, if the page for Jim Webb was semi-protected but not that of Allen, his opponent. Mostly it is because the extent of vandalism, while slightly less that the Webb article, is still significant. (I counted 13 reverts of anonymous or brand new editors in the past 15 hours). I expect it to increase as the November 7th election date gets closer. John Broughton | Talk 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to requst full protection for some time. Point 1. It is regularly vandalising by unregistered users. Point 2.User:Arthur Rubin case. A bit of history: Some time ago Arthur Rubin has filled a request for deletion of Global City article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_city. After AfD was lost to 0 he has started a poll for article move [2]. Lost it as well. I suggest to protect article for some time until he is calmed down. Elk Salmon 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. This page is vandalized every few days by Students of the school and rival schools. Almost all vandalizing is done anonymously, and a large portion is done inside the school, so an IP block would ineffective. Because it is not a very big or oft searched article, vandalisms can stay for days. --Alexbrewer 14:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 16:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. The anonymous vandals have quickly returned after the semi-protection was lifted on 24 October 2006. Yesterday, some sneaky vandalism involving the removal of a section header went unspotted for 8 hours (in which there were 4 other edits!), until I reverted it. There have been 21 vandal edits in the past 24 hours. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 16:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I spotted this edit. However, I realise that they do have a good point. Unfortunately, the poor anonymous vandal was quickly blocked before anyone could redirect them here. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. -- Steel 16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting immediate semi-protection: Severe vandalism from anon IP, been monitoring the page for weeks and it seems to be getting worse as we approach October 31.--James Bond 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection for these three pages, identical HTML linkspam for porn, Cialis, etc is being inserted into these pages daily or more frequently by random (and I would guess probably spoofed and by a spambot) IP's. Tubezone 13:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is generally vandalized several times a day, very often by High School Students exchanging 'funny' messages on it (e.g. "Ho Chi Minh was gay" etc...) Can we get it semi-protected pls? Cripipper 13:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection Requested, this page is being frequently reverted with various POVs.B. R. Ambedkar was a prominent Indian Politician and people having different POVs is natuaral, but edits are being reverted without discussion and reference to talk page and peer review.I wished at least those changes like corrections and facts of year and correct place name do not get reverted ,but these vandalisers simply bother about nothing .My experience with this article has been frustrating since I spent so much time in study and seeing those changes reverted by vandalisers is painfull; atleast I will not waste my time again on this article ,unless it gets adequate protection. Mahitgar 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for semi-protection due to ongoing repeated vandalism by unregistered users despite repeated attempts to talk to said users. Katsuhagi 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for semi-protection due to ongoing vandalism by (mostly) unregistered users. --Pascal666 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for semi-protection due to numerous occasions of blanking or other vandalism by unregistered users. Page is about recent events and seem to have come under attack since the season ended. The359 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection request due to speculation and other troublesome edits by unregistered users. Yes, this article was semi-protected previously around August, 2006. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to an overwhelming edit war by an anon who keeps adding controversial claims against the consensus. --Mardavich 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Overwhelming edit war. Please Full protect. --ScienceApologist 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism has occured on the main page. Now it's happing on the talk page. Semi Protection is needed. Kingjeff 18:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article seems to be a high risk for vandalism from IP addresses. Semi protection is needed. Kingjeff 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection as the article is constantly vandalised by anon editors, resulting in a high signal-to-noise ratio and a need for constant monitoring and reverting. So far, there have been eleven IP vandalism incidents reverted in the past 24 hours alone, and this has been going on for weeks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: article has been deluged with first-time-user IP addresses and single-purpose accounts, all suspiciously making the same edit: total removal of the "Bush and Berezovsky" section. wikipediatrix 14:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection -- an anonymous IP keeps semi-randomly switching around the names of the parties in a historic religious dispute. It's not that big a deal, but it's moderately annoying. AnonMoos 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection, as cool-down from lengthy edit war, whilst discussions continue - DBDR 11:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for semi-protection due to ongoing and persistent vandalism by unregistered users. These users believe it is true, but without a valid source to back up. Sometimes they use derogatory terms to describe the above person. --Chaohwa 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    After the application, there were several copycat vandals on Mike Francesa. It is necessary to put semi-protection on it. --Chaohwa 12:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. Vandalism is an at-least daily occurence, especially with regards to the images, but also in the text. Culprits seem to always be unregistered or newly registered users. --Scix 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Semi-protectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:35, 27 October 2006 (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.

    The edit wars are done. Please, unlock this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khaotik1 (talk • contribs) .

    The debate is over. No need for full protection anymore. Kingjeff 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Game is already released. So it needs great clean-up and edits. KvaZaR 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: it was put to full protection due to an edit war, which has now been resolved. It was at Semi-protection at the time, so maybe put it back to Semi-Protected? JQF 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (Lelv) I also think it should be "Semi-Protected". For example, Nick Fury was set as a Playable Character, but no one wrote that because it's protected!

    Considering the fact that there has been no vandalism since the restoration of the article (and it was deleted around a month ago now I believe) and that most vandalism before came from the school computers - on which the whole of Wikipedia is now blocked - I believe this does not require protection. Xeixz 12:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Unprotected Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, I do agree that the article 50 Cent has had some recent vandalism. But we need it unprotected. Most people who have accounts on Wikipedia don't know much information on 50 Cent. If more vandalism would occur after we unprotected it then we could punish those IP address vandals and/or protect the page again. If you have any questions leave a message on my discussion page. Thank you.Tennislover 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has been protected for about 2 weeks now. It had been disputed and was being supervised (may still be?) by Robindch. I would like to clean up the 'Further Reading' section using 3 bibliographies, and add material related to Gibbon's illness and his trips to the Continent. Thanks. Stevewk 16:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    UnprotectedBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm hoping to be unprotected from the Kosovo page, which is presently protected against edits by unregistered or recently registered users. I have only recently registered but have long contributed to the Kosovo page and Talk pages as '(JD)'. Many thanks. JamesAVD 13:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a notable person per WP:BIO, and linked from the wikimedia board of directors list, this page should have an article (and not a redirect). Sdr (talk · contribs) has volunteered to write the article, and I agree. Vectro 05:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Unprotected 137.148.107.7 13:30, 27 October 2006 (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.

    After many edit wars (and perhaps a complaint to the Foundation??), BradPatrick cut the article back to a stub with the comment, "Protected Pacific Western University: POV; sources; restart article; see talk page [edit=sysop:move=sysop] ". I researched the subject, made comments on the talk page, and wrote up a new, draft NPOV article on a user subpage at User:A. B./Draft Articles. I also left a note on Brad Patrick's talk page and received back a rather noncommittal answer. I'm asking that the new draft article replace what's there or else someone explain what I should do next. Note that I had nothing to do with the orginal article and have no stake, pro or con, in PWU. It's time to move forward with something more than a stub. --A. B. 22:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait until you get a decent enough consensus on the talk page, then I'll add them with attribution (or just unprotect to let them be added and then re-protect).Voice-of-All 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection – apparently the jokesters on Get This encouraged vandalism to this article. It's been hit constantly today by both IPs and usernames. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please someone do it ASAP, it is getting pummeled. So many vandals in the past 24 hours. - Mike Beckham 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected to stop frequent IP vandalism.--Jusjih 10:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection This article is about the radio presenter Pat Sissons. The presenter has been running a competition on his show this week (since Wendesday) for the most creative vandalism of this article. I have reverted the edits but the article needs protecting from further edits until the competition has finished and the dust cleared.--87.224.66.12 08:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected per nom.--Jusjih 10:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection. There's tonnes of recent and repetetive vandalism, from Mroche, DJplumber, 139.142.135.106, and other names. Various people have had to revert the article over 10 times.

    Semi-protected. Full is unnecessary as most of the accounts are new (under 4 days old), which cannot edit s-prot pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested for an extended period due to continuous anon vandalism. The article was protected for this reason on October 17th, and the vandalism all but ceased (there were only two reverts for vandalism over the following 8 days). For some reason, it was unprotected on October 25th, and in the 27 hours following, there were 10 edits by anonymous editors that had to be reverted. This article, for some reason, attracts nuisance vandals - not the same crowd repeating, but new ones again and again. --Ckatzchatspy 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection, vandalized by IPs and users who claim to reveal "the truth." (15 vandal edits over 2 days). bibliomaniac15 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection, repeated vandalism (10 reverts over 2 days). bibliomaniac15 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting semi-protection because various anonymous users consistently vandalize the page with perverted statements which are not historically true. Sometime they erase entire sections just to replace them with these perverted edits. And once that is done, please do not remove the tag! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection because issue is under constant attacks from both sided by anons not willing to discuss the matter as in talk. Amoruso 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs semi-protection again because after the tag was removed, a few IP users started a disruptive edit war. When this is semi-protected, please do not remove the tag. --Gh87 15:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly long-term semi-protection (full rationale at talk page) — page with stable content, but chronic, almost daily vandalism by one-shot, anonymous editors. --Piet Delport 15:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection since page is in the middle of a revert war. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected [3] by Sarah Ewart. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:411mania (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Help! We are requesting semi-protection to Talk:411mania because IP users claim "notability" and "importance" without any sort of purpose to explain by themselves. Although the revert cases are small, I'm afraid the edit wars are gonna get heavy if we don't do something soon. --Gh87 07:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi protection due to due to frequent vandalism by unregistered users. Thanks, --*Kat* 06:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for permanent semi-protection. Ongoing vandalism by (mostly) unregistered users. I recommend that an admin monitor the page with a rapid-revert-BOT if there is such a thing. Kittybrewster 20:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection due to persistant, daily IP vandalism and no constructive edits whatsoever from anonymous editors. -- mattb @ 2006-10-25T18:56Z

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection due to ongoing contreversy in public and past vandalism. It does not to seem be well established users but newly or unregistered users.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection due to persistent, daily vandalism by IP addresses. Akradecki 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 16:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bretons politically uncorrect

    Request protection for category:Breton cyclists, due to vandalism caused by anonymous IP: [[4]]

    Shelley Konk 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=84077060"