Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.255.225.49 (talk) at 00:36, 27 November 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.

    Requesting Semi-protection. This is a high risk page for vandalism. If you look at the history. There was only a very limited amout of vandalism on this page while it was semi-protected. There has been a ton of vandalism since losing the semi-protection 8 days ago. Kingjeff 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request full protection. Repeatedly vandalised by random declarations of love. SparrowsWing 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. It doesn't need full protection, semi should suffice. --Majorly (Talk) 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please semi-protect this article. Persistent anon vandalism is causing great chaos. TSO1D 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is in need of semi-protection; the article is consistently under the attack of IP vandals (look how many times "rv", "revert", and "vandalism" are mentioned in the page's history).--Porsche997SBS 18:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection But I think there should defiantly be a mention of the truth movement This movement is Massive and legitimate as the official story has many unanswerd questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.231.20 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    You're going to have to be more specific--exactly what article do you want sprotected? AmiDaniel (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection consistent vandalization (adding linkspam) of the page over the past week. The anon who was posting was blocked but the exact same vandalism is occurring from a different IP. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough vandalism to this article to warrant semi-protection. Please watchlist and revert as you see it. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry just curious... What constitutes as enough vandalism? I thought the semi-protect was to "stop banned or blocked users who are using multiple IP" I count 26 reversion to the page over a 15 day period even though the vandal has been warned multiple times and banned via one IP once. Sorry if I've read the policy wrong and thanks for the answer. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. I don't know if AmiDaniel overlooked the fact that this page has been hit with vandalism 3-5 times a day. Nishkid64 17:50, 26 November 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.

    Let's try unprotection for a while; hopefully protection is no longer necessary. JMartino (UTC)

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected. Five minutes later, it gets hit with multiple vandalism attacks. Nishkid64 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection. Page was protected after 9 citations from sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Business Week, etc, that I added were removed and a claim of edit-warring was made by User:Rgfolsom. This user appears to be Robert Folsom who works for Prechter. He has not made any contributions to the talk page since the protection, and nobody on the talk page has attempted to justify either the removal of the citations or the protection of the article. Smallbones 16:06, 26 November 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.

    There needs to be a significant edit to the Micheal Richards page, as it has be determined, and aired on the Today show by Matt Lauer, that the two men who heckled Richards did not respond with racist comments in response to his diatribe. Those comments came from other patrons in the club. To let that stand and not allow it to be corrected is a travesty of justice, and a provocatively racist omission. User: Rousedabout 18:40, 24 November, 2006 (MT)

    Please suggest changes to the article on the talk page. If you can gain consensus for your changes, then they will be implemented. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on the Philippines

    I think the information on the Philippines is not as substantial as other countries listed here. I think Filipinos, specifically those who are experts on this topic, should be given the freedom to edit or substantiate this article.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    User:86.133.37.183, User:MetallicSnake16, User:69.205.63.246, User:217.42.9.109, and User:66.214.47.110 have all been involved in an Edit War over the past 2-3 days and it has become extremely disruptive, as well as being attributed and concerned with over 300 edits within the past 72 hours, including over 60 times today, with other users removing things but only finding it to be added back again, or changed to a persons own POV/speculation. --r9tgokunks 19:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    Unprotection or change to semi-protection. Template is not used in article directly, only for creating other templates. So it's not that easy to find it. Full protection could be changed to semi-protection though. In the mean time some administrators editing it w/o discussion or even summary. There was no vandalism of this template in recent past. -- tasc wordsdeeds 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected As it's a high use template, I'm unwillng to unprotect. Just try to get in contact with the editing admins. Martinp23 12:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing admins blatantly violate guidelines, playing with template and ignoring all but themself. I really appreciate your help and insight into the problem. I'm sure you noticed that this high use template wasn't vandalised, at least in recent past. Of course, if we not counting admin-vandals. -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. The special case for templates in terms of protection is that some may be permanently protected before significant vandalism, as much to reduce server load as anything (see [1] for the sort of useage of this template, which shows that it is used in thousands of articles). The relevant policy is WP:HRT. As you may have noticed, in an effort to prevent violation of the rules by admins, I've left a commented out message at the top of the template, in the <noinclude></noinclude> part. I hope this helps you to understand my considered decision. Martinp23 13:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection there's a great deal of vandalism today from a variety of IP Vandals, likely due to FA status and front page placement. DukeEGR93 11:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not protect today's FA except in extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to watchlist and revert. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection it receives spam edits every day. --Russ is the sex 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough vandalism or linkspam to warrant semi-protection. Please watchlist and revert as you see it. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection supposed to be a protected deleted category. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Martinp23 12:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection supposed to be a protected deleted category. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Martinp23 12:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection supposed to be a protected deleted category. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Martinp23 12:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection not sure if this is supposed to be a protected deleted category, but it is supposed to be deleted so probably no harm in protecting it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Martinp23 12:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting unprotection. Page was semi-protected following heavy IP spamming due to Schumer's prominent role in recent US elections. Given that those are a while behind us i would move to remove it's protection. Note: The page has recently been relocated, as such the page log will probably be located at "Charles Schumer" rather than "Chuck Schumer" Thethinredline 02:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Martinp23 11:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection. It's been a week since this article was protected. There are still disputes over a number of things: who is a mulatto, is "mulatto" in standard use. There seems to be a consensus, however, that the introduction is poorly written and in need of attention.--Media anthro 10:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected I'm a bit uneasy about this one, but we'll see how it goes. AmiDaniel (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting unprotection. This article has been protected for over a week, and the article looks fairly neat, so can it be taken off protection. No major vandalism seems to be done to it. 86.20.53.195 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected Only locked a few days ago - I can't believe that vandalism will have died down yet. Martinp23 12:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Anonymous IP's removing references and inserting fact tags, appears to support a non-NPOV. Cohesive group of registered editors with a history of working together to keep article NPOV and sourced -- anonymous users making unilateral changes and removing references. /Blaxthos 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Also, some of those anon edits appear to have been made in good faith. Nishkid64 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection someone with changing ip keeps vandalising. IrisKawling 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection has been vandalised by new users a lot lately. Anom8trw8 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Request full protection if registered users continue to vandalize.--Húsönd 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection has been vandalised by new users and IPs a lot lately. Anom8trw8 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, I think this should be protected as it has been heavily vandalised in the past, and rumours have been posted on there which are not true. 86.20.53.195 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for the same reason I gave yesterday or whenever it was I declined this. -- Steel 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Steel359 here - there are a huge number of legit edits coming to this article from IPs and new users, and we don't want to wipe these out on the basis of one or two bad editors, and a small group of users appartely obsessed with page protection, even resorting to vandalism to get their point across. Martinp23 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you rather an article where all the stuff on it was basically true with no edits, or an article that gets edited by vandals every minute of every day? I suggest Steel and Martinp23 have a major rethink if they want this to continue. Look at the talk page to see what others think of this reaccuring problem.86.20.53.195 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand what you're saying, but Martin and Steel are right. This issue goes back to the whole point of Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is here for anyone to edit, including IP's. We usually semi-protect when all the edits made by anons or newly registered users are vandalism. If half of the edits are beneficial, and half aren't, then we won't protect the article. Besides, there are some experienced editors watching over the page, so I think any potential vandalism will be reverted/fixed. Nishkid64 21:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting unprotection. This article has been protected since October 28th as a result of an edit war. A dialogue about this has been reached at Talk:Soybean#Complete Proteins, with one proposal having the support from one of the edit war participants. I've just come across this article but it being protected for one month seems quite unusual and unneccessary. I would expect that at least enough time has gone by that cooler heads may have prevailed. Kurieeto 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid64 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this protested in teh first place. Tlak page dosent say

    Not unprotected - it was protected due to anonymous vandalism, as you will see if you click the "logs" link above. Thanks Martinp23 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection. This is my user talk page and has been "protected" by a certain InShaneee who is a rogue administrator on a ego trip and a disgrace to wikipedia. I hope some responsible admin will look into this and unblock my use page. Also, please see this admins user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InShaneee) for the trouble that he has been causing others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dining philosopher (talk • contribs)

    Unprotected Martinp23 20:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=90328898"