Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asterion (talk | contribs) at 06:11, 24 July 2006 (Lebanon). 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.

    Semiprotection. Lots of anon IP edits. Someone willing to extend the real life conflict here. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead RFC that has attracted a number of spambots. --SPUI (T - C) 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request full protection instead of Semi-Protection due to vandalism, edit wars and dispute over the main picture. It is getting very annoying. It's true that's its against Wiki principles and policies, but I don't think we have any more solution. Semi-protection will not solve anything. --Deenoe 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    semi perotection is needed after removing recent contribution by banned editor Alebruni http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.1.182.215 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alberuni Zeq 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection due to constant vandalism by IPs. Ryūlóng 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Semi-protection due to vandalism and dispute over the main picture. Hello32020 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Permanent Protection : Page needs more references but user will not allow references claiming they are spam. Will not allow US to be added above UK. Only allowing land bingo references under an Online Bingo category. Would like to stop edit war. --JohnRegan 23:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Permanent Protection : This page has been vandalised and has already been granted full protection. Please consider Full Permanent Protection because editor "Suture" has attempted to cajole the subject of the article, who is not even participating, into pressing libel charges against Wikipedia (see the discussion page). Sutre stated that "In any case there are several of us who would love the opportunity to appear in a court of law to expose his flawed "journalism". Sutre is not concerned with the encyclopedic value of the article as he also wrote, "Frankly, the article matters little at this point, as any reader of this discussion will instantly see that I've proven my original edits entirely correct." Please consider Full Permanent Protection for this article to stop Sutre from provoking lawsuits agaisnt Wikipedia. 617USA

    Semi-protection. Page under constant vandalism attacks from anon IPs. E Asterion u talking to me? 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. This page is constantly vandalized by anonymous or (more rarely) newly registered users. A brief look at the page's history shows that nearly half of the edits are vandalism. This is a religion page, so it is of course controversial, and I'm fairly certain it will always be a target for vandals. --Lethargy 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. An anonymous user with multiple IP's has been adding information to this article that he/she claims to have hacked from a www.nick.com XML file that has since been removed from the website. Despite numerous attempts by numerous editors to point out that this information is not verifiable or based on a reliable source or even legal to add, and a RfC determining the community census on the issue (located at Talk:List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_episodes#Request for Comment: Verifiability of recent additions), the anyonymous user continually adds this information back to the page, and has severely abused the 3RR (on which a report was made, but because of having multiple IPs, this user is getting around the recently-sentenced 24-hour block). It should also be noted that this anyonymous user is highly suspected to be Father's Wish (talk · contribs), who was the original editor who added this hacked information and has been active in the revert war as well. This particular page's dispute is part of a much larger issue concerning Father's Wish's and similar anonymous IP's additions to numerous pages relating to Avatar: The Last Airbender; more information concerning this issue can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender#The_current_mess. In short, however, it requested that for the time being, this page receive semi-protection to stop the anonymous user from continually adding unverifiable/illegal information to it against community conensus; if the user Father's Wish picks up the trend after semi-protection is instituted, full-protection will then be requested. Thank you. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection. This article has turned into a revert war (Please note, my first two reverts were to combat vandalism). User:Jackman69 tried to remove the alias (proof of which is on IMDB and the back of the album 'bleach'). He was subsequently blocked for vandalism. User: 24.189.164.43 has taken up after him trying to remove the alias, and is totally ignoring the talk page. Jibbles | Talk 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was supposed to have been semi-protected earlier today (due to a flurry of edits by sockpuppets of a banned user), but according to recent edits, it didn't "take" KarlBunker 21:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected already due to heavy vandalism. What you are seeing is sleeper accounts waiting out the protection. Voice-of-All 05:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection requested. This is an airshow which is happening this week (finishes on Sunday). An anonymous user coming from at least 3 different IP addresses (indicating some sort of dynamic IP, possibly) keeps adding the same commercial links, probably hoping to benefit financially from visitors to their website this week. Richard W.M. Jones 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Only a a couple of vandal edits per day which can very easily reverted. I have myself watchlisted the article and will be keeping a close watch for any excessive vandalism. But right now not enough to merit an sprotect therefore declined. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Semi-protect

    A great deal of vandalism, both overt and via weasel words, has been pouring in since the start of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Edit warring has also been a problem and full protection might be worth considering as well. Schrodingers Mongoose 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has already been Semi-protected by User:King of Hearts. teb728 08:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the talk page also be semi-protected for awhile? There are many talk pages being archived due to the many non-registered political comments, and the ensuing replies required to continually stop political discussion free-for-alls. Real work on the page is being slowed down due to the talk page becoming a political discussion forum instead of a normal wikipedia talk page. Many good civil editing points are being buried due to the many archived talk pages created by the political fights. --Timeshifter 10:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, protection of any talk page is against Wikipedia conventions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is done sometimes. From the semi-protection page there is this: "Talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request." --Timeshifter 10:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection requested. Unsigned user with IP started with 219.* is giving false information for the article, re-edited the article for several times after other users and I deleted the false data. Tthk2006 16:57, 23 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 05:51, 24 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.

    Page was reverted and protected to a version about which there was no consensus. As its stands now page is unclear. We are co-operatively working on the text and request at the least that the page be rolled back to concensus and then protected. Thanks. Wjhonson 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, look. I did not revert it. I protected it after something like the 4th revert in 24 hours. You were not cooperatively editing the page, you were all just reverting it instead. Work it out on talk, or on a temporary subpage and then seek unprotection. As it is, you were all just brewing an edit war. -Splash - tk 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unprotection This page was semi-protected over a week ago (when it was located at Template:User male) because of IP vandalism. I think it should be safe now. —Mira 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has been fully protected for almost a month. In that time, the editors have selected a mediator from their midst (Talk:Falun_Gong#CovenantD_official_mediator_here) and made progress towards resolving the conflict that led to protection. As that mediator, I think we're ready to try having it reduced to semi-protected status. CovenantD 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Voice-of-All 09:20, 23 July 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.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Full Protection This article has turned into a full scale edit war. There have been 20 reverts in the past two hours. At least four people have violated the 3RR rule. My only involvement was to try to ask people to calm down and discuss the changes. I urge someone to protect this quickly. Davidpdx 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, this edit war is still continuing at about 5 reverts every five minutes. Davidpdx 13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    At least Semi-protection. Someone disabled semi-protection and made no protection. Hello32020 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Large revert war going on now, as seen on history page. Hello32020 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      I've semi-protected the page, I'll let another admin look at it and decide on full protection. --Pilotguy (roger that) 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      There is not enough recent activity to justify full protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Voice-of-All 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Was again unprotected. Please re-semi-protect. Hello32020 00:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi Protection requested due to recent abuse of the user by multiple anon users. Sof far 1 has been blocked and 2 more are awaiting the same (WP:AIV). However, unsusual as it is to request page protection of an other users page, I think it would stop the abuse. ViridaeTalk 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time (unless the user his/herself requested it). Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection Several anonymous IPs have added nonsensical, unvalidated information about this actor's personal life, usually intertwined with factual information. This user's changes are hallmarked by poor gramar and not complying with the NPOV policy (often stating that the actor is 'very hot', 'I hate you (insert other actor)', etc). --Mgway 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      There is not enough recent activity for a block; just watch and revert. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unprotection This page was in dispute. It was being recreated from scratch. This was clearly noted in the article and an admin deleted and protected. This is not called for. I was requested to rewrite it and I was. Please unprotect. Thanks. Wjhonson 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Voice-of-All 09:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection User using several anonymous IPs is continuously adding vanity entries about his time as a sailor on this ship. Additionally, he is makes numerous miniscule changes, thus making the the page history ridiculously long [1]. This has been going on for quite some time. If the page was protected for a while, he might lose interest and find another way to occupy his time.--Nobunaga24 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Ask for a block if he keeps violating policy. Voice-of-All 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    ok,i know i just asked a few hours ago,but now its reall gotten vandalised-at least 10 vandalism edits in the last 2 hours.look at the hisyory of this page-people chainging his height,calling him 'jacob jacintino',posting"I love Rey and doesn't care what anyone says, he is not leeching off Eddie memory" in random places so that it affects images and things.please semi protect,as it seems to be mostly ips.i am snape.i killed innocent bugs. 04:59, 23 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 09:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - This is seriously ridiculous, we have to have people watching the article 24/7 to keep it clean, we've had 5 or 6 vandalism attacks yesterday, I highly suggest that someone DOES lock it.

    if were lucky the coast might be clear and the stupid haters might realise how hard weve worked to make this article,like cenas myspace blog which the haters spammed with nasty photos leading wwe to make him shut it down.SNAPE KILLS A FLY HAHAHAH PWNED! 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Its still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Voice-of-All 09:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    has been semi-protected for waaay to long.SNAPE KILLS A FLY HAHAHAH PWNED! 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 09:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Constant editors from all POVs feel that vandalism is a problem. It tends to come in batches, and always returns just as we come to agree the article is good. It needs protection, specially considering it is in the front page.--Cerejota 06:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also support Semi-protection. Vandalism is a problem. Hello32020 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was coming here to list it as well. There have been numerous IP's vandalising this article. I strongly urge semi-protection. Davidpdx 03:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also recommend semi-protection. Defsac 08:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 09:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Davidpdx 12:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. A consensus was reached on the talk page several months ago that this should be a redirect page until the character becomes more prominent in the TV show Lost. Today one user and two different IPs have reverted this to the article without any discussion on the talk page. This will probably continue unless the page is semi-protected. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:29, 22 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 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. This article is being hit numerous times a day with a variety of vandalism techniques, from page blanking to obscenities to weasel words. It appears that the majority of the vandalism is coming from many different IP users, and whenever I have looked at a particular IP's contribution history, many of them are hitting only Arab / Middle Eastern pages and little else. Check out the history page; it is full of reverts from regular users and anti-vandal bots. Tarc 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist, as many have, and revert any vandalism. 51% of the edits are from new users/IPs, but only 15% of edits are reverts. Also there is only a 1 : 0.18 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV). Voice-of-All 21:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request unprotection This is a simple redirect, to a page that is currently undergoing revision and was the subject of a prior dispute. There is no reason to protect it. Wjhonson 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is not protected. --Conti|✉ 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protection. One person keeps adding false and potentially libelous stuff. Probably needs temporary protection until things are sorted out. -- Denis Diderot 12:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      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 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect.is under attack,not from haters like the cena one was,but by people who like him.they add thing like:i love rey and hes not leeching off eddies memory.SNAPE KILLS A FLY HAHAHAH PWNED! 00:43, 23 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 03:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. This article has been the site of a long and persistent edit war. The two main "sides" cannot agree on anything. The current edit war du jour is whether a newsgroup is a web site (resulting in an edit war over the removal of a category), and whether this article needs to {{not verified}}. I would have added the protection myself (and I did, for a minute), but I have also been actively editing this page (mainly as an informal mediator), so I figured I should get a neutral admin to do so. These guys need to discuss the changes in the talk page, and I figure I'd edit the page once these guys agree on something. That they can't edit the page will certainly encourage them not to edit war. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=65504077"