Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaustuv (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 8 July 2006 (→{{la|Jerome Armstrong}}: correcting placement of links). 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
    V • T • E


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Semi protection: Anonymous user has been waging a slow revert war. Several attempts[1][2][3][4] to get him to participate in a discussion on Talk:Jerome Armstrong have been met with stony silence. Same person has also twice vandalised user pages of people he disagrees with[5][6], indicating that he has no interest in consensus-building. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 20:23, July 8, 2006

    Full protection. Edit war, POV conflicts.Conflicts over use of sources, translations of terminologies. His Excellency... 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Edit war and large blankings of sections and references by Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) and anonymous users [7] [8] [9] [10]. --Msiev 12:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Edit War and heated debate over NPOV issues have caused multiple edits/reverts daily, please protect this page until discussion on talk page comes to a consensus.--Oiboy77 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection These article appear to be attractive nuisances—just irresistible for some to add their name or someone they know's name (or most constantly, Donald Trump) to the lists of billionaires. The 2006 page was created on March 12, 2006, 112 days ago, and has had approx. 70 vandalism reverts with edit summaries that state reversion and a boatload more, harder to count, without summaries, almost all in response to ips, sometimes with the vandalism remaining for more than one day before being reverted. The 2005 article has similar numbers of marked and unmarked reverts during the same time period.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This project has been vandalized repeatedly since the Australia vs Italy World Cup match a couple of weeks ago. The attacks subsided somewhat, but picked up again after Grosso scored the winning goal in this week's Germany vs Italy match, including six times over the last 48 hours, attacks come from various anonymous users. I expect vandalisms to become more frequent as Italy is playing in this Sunday's World Cup final.Ytny 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This article MUST be semi-protected. There seems to be a sock puppet vandal who I am about to deal with, and they are constantly editing the page with redundant accounts. I have warned about ten people in the last ten minutes for exactly the same edit and another 5 have vandalised the article in the time that I have writeen this. Semi-protect urgently, possible fully protect (I've no idea how old these redundant accounts are). --Draicone (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection I requested this before but for some reason the request was removed by a robot without being accepted/refused. Reason - the page was semi-protected up to 08:29, 6 July 2006 , since then many reverts. Un registered users add useless or unverified info etc. Please semi-protect.HappyVR 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Edit War and heated debate has escalated to the point where one disgruntled editor is attempting to delete most of the page.--Cberlet 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: An upswing of random vandals as a fall out of his granted trade request from the Edmonton Oilers. ccwaters 14:07, 7 July 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.

    Please unprotect because many good conversations are going on in the talk and any vandalism or warring is always quickly taken care of by serious editors. If this page is protected it can't be improved. Please unprotect. Thanks. Scifiintel 02:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect: Protected since June 5. There was no edit war in the first place. The nature of the article is that it will be edited constantly. Everyone is agreed on this. There was no uncivility in the edits. There is also a consensus to move to a revised version I have developed so that people with POV for all three major sides have a section or sections present their findings. See the talk page. No work is being made by the one who requested protection to find a way to unprotect the article. No reason is given for the protection in the first place. If there is a reason, then whatever the reason, I am sure it has been resolved - as there has been no activity on the article for quite some time now. A month of protection without reason is censorship in my opinion. No work is being done on the article at all, and the larger community of editors of both Messianics ands non Messianics have given up contributing, and have given up pushing to get the page unprotected as a result. Multiple requests to unprotect the page have been deleted. Please send someone neutral to the discussion to make a decision on how best this article should move forward. inigmatus 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sprotected since July 1st due to IP vandalism. I have requested that editors from Geology of the British Isles (many anonymous contributors) take a quick look. On the off chance one responds, it would be nice if they were able to edit the article.EricR 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jtdirl should probably take look at this, left a note on his talk page.EricR 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page was protected some time ago because of an edit war. Editors agree there are no problems now.--Nectar 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Only because Duarte Pio supporters want no insert in this page a truth thata is the last monarchic contitution excluded to succession the miguelist branch of Duarte Pio, so they protected this page. This is not democratic and correct. User:Manuel 4 July 2006 (UTC)

    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.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    I need my pages to be protected, please as soon as possible. To see the current position of my talk page click here and you will find out why i want to be protected. Thank you--Salman 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your user page does not appear to be receiving any vandalism. What exactly do you need protected, and why? Zetawoof(ζ) 06:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this either.Voice-of-All 09:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One's userpage is there's (generally). Other users are only allowed to edit in ways that are considered acceptable on another's userpage (such as spelling corrections), my userpage is protected for that reason. Myrtone
    There is this editor who is placing tags on my talk page and he is saying that if I delete any more comments from other wikipedians then he is going to block me from editing from wikipedia. Other wikipedians are also having problem with him, see this page. I tried to explain him the reason why I like to delete comments from my talk page but he keeps on saying that it is not the right thing to do. I don’t understand what to do now. I am not trying to ignore anyone’s comment by deleting them. I just want my talk page to have issues that I am currently working on, so I can concentrate on them. Can you please protect my page so he can not edit my talk page and I can keep selected comments on my talk page? Thank you--Salman 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Denied. Talk pages are only protected in very specific cases, as it's important for other users to be able to leave you messages. If you have an issue with another user, bring it to Requests for comment (RFC) or Requests for arbitration (RFA). Zetawoof(ζ) 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: Ongoing, multi-party edit war over the name and sourcing of a specific blogger. Is currently at a request for mediation, but it hasn't stopped the war in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Page already protected[11] by Jonathunder. Voice-of-All 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection: This page is vandalized almost everyday. In addition to the enormous debate about what should or should not be listed in the article, the work of these vandals makes keeping this page encyclopedic that much more of a problem. Another lesser problem is new users who add innacurate information to the article based on Oliver Stone's JFK movie or some Internet site even though the information has been shown to be false through prior discussion of the editors. Ramsquire 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection: The article is being edited unnecessarily. Wrestling fanboys are updating it with the most inane of details (ie: the color eyeliner, boots, and tights he wears over his entire career), making it very much unlike an encylopedia article, and making it twice as long as it previously was (see "14:20, 7 July 2006" edit). Along the same lines, these updates throw off the consistency of the article's tone, as these edits are written in a bombastic WWE writer style. Another recent edit ("05:11, 7 July 2006") borders on vandalism, as one, small section of the article was countlessly copied/pasted over existing content. Furthermore, it is being updated on a near weekly basis to give wrap-ups and summaries of every wrestling event. It is to a point where the article is becoming unreadable. Y2kcrazyjoker 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection: IP users persist in adding nonsense (looks like crap from a blog/forum) to this dab pages talk page. Thanks/wangi 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't understand why this template is protected; there are just thirteen edits in the history, and it's been protected fully since last December. There was no reason given on the talk page (in fact, there is no talk page at all), no warring, and nothing notable in the history save for one instance of blanking. All I really want to do is add an image at the front of the stub template. Dvandersluis 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This template is protected for no apparent reason; it has hardly any edit history, no warring, no explanation for the protection on the talk page, isn't transcluded on a large number of pages so editing wouldn't cause any collateral damage. I can only assume that the admin who protected it assumed that it should be protected as it pertains to the protection system, but this is not the case. BigBlueFish 09:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason to edit it other than just to make it look more wiki.Voice-of-All 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm relisting this because that's an awful excuse. Wikis start from the "everyone can edit" end of the spectrum and protect as needed, not protect and unprotect when needed. As a graphical notice, there could be all manner of reasons why someone might decide to refine it, so I see no reason why we should sit in front of them. Wikipedia is not run by admins. BigBlueFish 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Un-protected. Since it only appears on talk pages and is not in use so much anymore. Voice-of-All 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This article only had a few vandalism edits per day, at most, before it was protected. It's been semi-protected long enough, I think. Powers 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- Samir धर्म 06:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection He keeps calling me a meanie and other stuff (see page history) After he was blocked. I already warned him about loosing the abilities of editing that page, and he kept doing it. °≈§→ Robomaeyhem: T/←§≈° 05:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for a short bit until PA's cease -- Samir धर्म 05:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection if you feel it's more appropriate. Some anon user meat/sock puppets have been inserting a blatantly NPOV piece of Original Research (for instance accusations of "firmly establishing slave labour"). I have done my best to try to discuss it with them, but my comments from the talk page have been removed, I have received NO response apart from being accused of being bribed by the company (of which I have never even heard of!) These comments are too blatant to be left on the page for a long time, I cannot always revert them fast enough, and this is the only kind of editing this page has been getting the last few weeks. (Note: just within the last couple of hours some registered users have reverted the revert of these comments, but I believe this were made mistakingly because it was an anon user removing a large chunk of the article without a comment, these registered users are not a part of this issue). --Konstable 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection needed. (Edits by 12.135.134.146 & 134.173.180.105 are vandalism. Sentences were deleted at whim.) See the page history for article. Someone had vandalized the table with the removal of Manuel Noriega from power and more. Unregistered users should not be permitted to mess up the tables and ruin historical facts.--Patchouli 01:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection continued vandalism for over a week, adding the same thing every time. From multiply IP addresses, although I am pretty sure it's the same person. Seeing as this is the only thing going on on the article, adding protection wouldn't hurt anything. Check the history of it, over 90% of all edits is me or other editors reverting the same vandalism. Havok (T/C/c) 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only activity is vandalism. What does it take to get this article protected..? Havok (T/C/c) 08:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection The Scots Guards page is being continually vandalised by an anonymous user. Please place protection on it to avoid this continual vandalism Hammersfan 5/7/06, 14.55 BST

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection Edit war. It has been attacked by a number of anon users multiple times during the last 24 hours. It is likely to just get worse once traffic increases after the holiday is over.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 07:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection - Assuming good faith, per guidelines, I believe User:HolyRomanEmperor should be protected because reports indicate that the user is deceased. See WT:RFA for more information. Although it is skeptical at this point if he really is gone, the first half of the procedure was already done when his account was indef blocked. — The King of Kings 03:47 July 04 '06

    Fully protected. Voice-of-All 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting "Semi-Protection" for the Iglesia ni Cristo article. An edit war between editors and proxy IP addesses believed to be emico (talk · contribs) in violation of an ArbCom decision. This edit war has also caused Coffeemaker (talk · contribs) to deliberately disrupt the article by replacing the entire article with this edit.

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection 6 (or more) anon vandals adding {{POV}} tags. Please remove tag, as well. See this report in WP:AN/3RR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested. Page was seim-protected but protection was removed. Unfortunately the situation has not changed, and article now needs constant reverts. Please semi-protect.HappyVR 15:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=62769954"