Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 😂 (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 30 April 2007 (→{{la|Keisha Castle-Hughes}}: Unprotected). 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 pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload 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.

    Full protection - the issue is with the user TYoung8 (probably the subject of the article) who is liberally sanitizing the information without comment of explanation. If he is blocked, he will likely return as an anonymous user. Geoff NoNick 13:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - removal of unsourced negative information is encouraged by WP:BLP, and it is a shame if the subject has to do it himself. Kusma (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced negative information like his middle names and the fact that, because his father is a life member of the House of Lords, he is entitled to use the title the Honourable? Please explain. Geoff NoNick 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of this does not belong here. Full protection wouldn't be justified here anyway. If there is a problem with the article, perhaps we can find out what it is by talking to the other editor instead of reverting and protecting. Kusma (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection - there is ongoing edit war with many anons, I propose full protection until consensus will be reached. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection Ongoing editing of external links. --Doc z 12:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection, the article has had few helpful edits and plenty of vandalism from anonymous users. --Iamunknown 10:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected with an expiry of 1 month. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi ProtectionThis page is subject to frequent vandalism from anon IPs. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected with an expiry of 14 days. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full ProtectionThis page is subject to daily vandalism and disruptive editing,one editor with pro-british without an account keeps editing the surname as British and cites unreliable sources.The sources he used also mentioned that names such as Murphy and Connolly are British.I have used more reliable sources,for the article,one of them a book called The Book Of Irish surnames.Please protect this article.OdC 09:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - there's not enough activity at present. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection This page is subject to daily vandalism from numerious sources, majorily concentrated by Peruvians and Mexican nationalistic views. --Jerahad 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - all the vandalism is from IP's and new users - semi protection is enough. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. For some reason, getting lots of anon vandalism lately. howcheng {chat} 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - the vandalism seams to have stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at 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.

    Article was semi-protected in December after Stephen Colbert suggested her baby was going to be born on Christmas day. Now that she's really had her baby and hopefully all the Colbert fans have moved on to vandalise something else, I think it can be unproteced Nil Einne 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - Seems like a reasonable period of time has passed. ^demon[omg plz] 14:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This article was protected to deal with an edit war involving User:CINEGroup. That user has now been indef. blocked for disruption. Suggest unprotection now, rather than when the protection expires on May 8. Chrisch 12:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I am requesting that the bans on these articles be lifted as I believe they were originally applied for false reasons. I believe that user Jayjg applied these bans out of a personal bias towards me, not to prevent edit warring as he claimed. On my talk page he admited that he disagreed with my views, which would seem to contradict his claims of neutality.

    I am willing to provide more evidence to support this view if you wish.annoynmous 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I should clarify that I'm asking for the bans to be lifted on all 3 of these articles because I believe they are all the result of a consistant case of wikistalking on Jayjgs part.

    Jayjg refuses to lift the ban on Nimmo even though the issue under contention has been resolved. He refuses to lift the ban because he believes I'll edit a part of the article unrelated to the issue under contention.

    He blocked the Alan Cabal article after I had reverted another edit once and then claimed it was becasue of edit warring. How can you claim edit warring after one revert. Doesn't it need to go on for while to be considered edit warring.

    He always seems to conveniently block the article when my version gets edited out. If he was truly neutral don't think he'd perserve my version once. It gives the impression he endorses one version over another. I beleive this is simply a transparent attempt to keep me from contributing to the article. annoynmous 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This Article is biased and the author’s are pro-Hindutva with lot of OR. This article should be allowed to edit so that the atrocities of Hindutva militant group such as RSS and Bajrang Dal can be included. The supporter of this ideology are causing greatest damage to Indian Christians and all other minorities. This is for 3rd time submitted my request to unprotect and somehow my request is getting vanished. John Paul 09:49, 30 April 2007 (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.

    Requesting the placement of template:sockpuppeteer on this page per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold. John254 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like unnecessary branding, to me. What is the predicted benefit of such an action? Dmcdevit·t 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The template would assist users in identifying new sockpuppets of ChrisGriswold. John254 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined: ChrisGriswold has stated that he is concerned of troubles that may result in using his real name as his username, which is a very legitimate concern. While his recent sockpuppetry is clearly unacceptable, the open ArbCom request will decide what course to take in this incident; branding him with this template would only cause problems. Krimpet (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the replacement of the language "unreferenced negative" with "unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial" for consistency with the provisions of WP:BLP regarding the removal of unreferenced information, and to avoid misunderstandings with users who do not regard the unreferenced information they are adding to articles as negative. John254 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. – Steel 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent edit war was begun due to questions about whether or not Scientology actually published or referenced a forged Naval service document when describing L. Ron Hubbard's career in the US Navy. I have found references that current Scientology webpages are still using the document. I don't know if the block should be lifted yet, so instead I'm asking that the references be added by an uninvolved sysop. To make this as easy as possible for anyone who wishes to help, here is a link to what I want to change: L. Ron Hubbard#After the war. And this is what I'd like replaced: [citation needed] tag with <ref>Description of Hubbard's service/awards from news.scientology.org as a rebuttal to a Boston Herald article: [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page10fb.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11a.htm]</ref> minus the nowiki tags of course. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined That citation does not directly support the claim He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation" as the claim is being presented by the author, nor Hubbard, and as it is primarily an attack on Joseph Mallia, including that reference would not be conducive to maintaining a neutral POV on the article. —dgiestc 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may have missed what Joseph Mallia was writing about. He was writing about the truth of Hubbard's claims to have been a "war hero", and the site referenced is refuting the claims made by Mallia. In doing this they refer to a fake document indicating Hubbard won 21 awards including a Purple Heart with "palm".

    The real form in question was made public after a FOIA request and is very different than the one referenced by the CoS site. Since the links show clearly what the CoS claims, the two accounts should both be discussed for the sake of NPOV. Anynobody 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"

    Also the above statement was not Mallia's statement it was whichever editor here that wrote it:

    1. Malia writes article
    2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards [1]
    3. Real naval record comes out: [2]
    4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: [3].

    You seem to think it was Malia who said Hubbard won 21 awards, it's the other way around. Anynobody 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-read my response. My reading comprehension is fine. If you want to make this change, propose it on the talk page, gain the consensus of other editors, and then make a new request here. —dgiestc 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of clarity, at this point I'm not saying you have to make the change. However your response does not acknowledge any of the other sources cited above by me or those already referenced in the article itself. The links I added here, that you say is an attack on Malia, are claims made by Hubbard's biographer that he earned 21 medals according to this document: [4]. Since the biographer/CoS are citing the above document, it represents what they maintain Hubbard's war record was. Now that the Navy version has come out, and it's different, both versions should be on the article for readers to judge for themselves. Again you don't have to make the change, but please explain your original answer because saying it would be POV and doesn't support the contention seems to indicate either you or I may not understand all the relevant information. Anynobody 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support addition of citation
    • Anynobody seems to have spelled this out very well, with reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • It's a fine source for representing Scientology's position, but it's neither written by nor quoting Hubbard, which is the claim Anynobody has proposed it be added as a citation for. It can certainly be used as a citation for Scientology's claims, just not for claims ascribed to Hubbard personally. —dgiestc 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the place to request it, but... I'm looking for an extremely specific edit: One of the headers reads: "Shadow Shuriken Imitation Technique." It was actually changed to that from "Shuriken Shadow Imitation Technique" here, immediately before the dispute took place, and nobody caught it until after the full-protect. Several pages link directly to that header, so having the wrong header for an entire week will mess that up. A desire for this edit is expressed at the bottom of Talk:List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Summoning: Impure World Resurrection, though nobody has really brought up requesting a protected-page edit. You Can't See Me! 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this article was fully-protected only yesterday. It's important to discuss/notify other editors of your requested changes. Can you request this on the article's talk page with {{Editprotected}}, please? - Alison☺ 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the correction of the following typographical errors:

    invstigate => investigate

    soly => solely

    Thanks. John254 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- zzuuzz(talk) 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Request an edit as per the section "Bias" on the articles talk page. The dispute that required the protection should be largely resolved by the edit proposed as it has been agreed to by one of the disputing parties (and by one other editor on my own talk page) and not replied to by the opposing party (nor opposed by any other editor) since the compromise was suggested on 15 April.
    2. The article page has a semi protected tag but is actually fully protected. This should be corrected by either making the page semi protected or changing the tag. Cheers Wayne 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - Phaedriel - 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi Protection This page is subject to frequent vandalism from numerous sources. --Amandajm 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    move-protect. Despite consensus on the talk page, Dove1950 unilaterally and repeatedly moves it back to Philippine piso. Locking it to Philippine peso may induce him to talk a little bit more. --Howard the Duck 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully move protected due to move warring. - auburnpilot talk 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. This page suffers from a high level of regular IP vandalism (of a particularly depressing type, evidently due to its name). It is a fairly low-visibility page and so sometimes does not get corrected for days or longer. The page should be permanently semi-protected against vandalism. bikeable (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 07:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi Protection This article is stable. Virtually the only editting to take place is vandalism which is very frequent. --Amandajm 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Krimpet (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi Protection For some reason, this page has been getting an extremely high number of vandalism over the past hour. Greatal386 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has calmed down for the past 20 minutes...the trolls may be gone...Greatal386 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. 69.0.82.77 and ILryro2MUCH have been blocked from editing. If vandalism continues, feel free to repost. - auburnpilot talk 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection (for 1mth). Ongoing issues with this article regarding no referenced being cited and alot of the article seems to be gleamed from published sourced without any verfiable sources. Also article requires cleanup to make it easier to read..etc. Also had issues with user Tony Senatore with poor edits, rv article many times and wiping out sections..etc. Need to have admin intervention. --Mikecraig 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned both users for violations of the three revert rule. If users continue, I'd suggest blocks, not protection. - auburnpilot talk 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection. A changing series of IP users have been attempting to insert unsourced, contentious material into this BLP. There have been several attacks per day over the last few days. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 03:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. This is a redirect to Political Google bombs, having been merged to that article a few months ago. Since then, a few editors (myself included, mea culpa) have redirected it to George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter as a joke, in reference to the actual Google bomb. The vandalism is not particularly frequent, but there is no need for the page to be editable, so it's better to protect it. YechielMan 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Krimpet (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. For one month. Please protect this page as user PHG is violating npov (he is pushing a blatantly colonial view on this page and other indian pages due to his use of author Tarn and is misrepresenting other sources) and has refused to compromise (stubbornly rejected several proposals to date without reason) as seen on discussion page. I have been seeking dialogue and objectivity, but user's stubborness has left me no choice but to request page protection. Please page protect as his one-sidedness has severely compromised the objectivity of the map and article (he is posting a map that shows half the indian subcontinent under the Indo Greeks which is factually incorrect and is contested by mainstream authors). Users Windy City Dude, Pavanapuram, and Vaastu have all complained and petitioned for compromise before, but to no avail. Please maintain the accuracy of the page for at least a while.

    Regards

    Devanampriya 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined: I don't think protection will aid in settling this dispute, it would probably be better to seek help through the dispute resolution process. Krimpet (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. For a month or two maybe? This article has been vandalized 3 times in the past week, by vandals who've decided to state their own personal slanderous "views" which potentially compromise the integrity of the article, the artist and wikipedia. (my previous request was deleted w/o review) wickedxjade 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Phaedriel - 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:MDS International (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protect. Also, semiprotection for talk pages of MDS America and MVDDS. These pages are the subject of an ongoing conflict between officials at MDS International and MDS America concerning claims to certain technologies, and this has been part of a recent court case. The conflict has, I believe, already been raised on WP:AN/I. The talk pages, however, continue to be used by IP accounts for personal attacks, especially against the Kuwaiti owner of MDSA. Any help is appreciated. nadav 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive my intervention here, but I think this should be proposed first at one of the Talk pages. We are actually getting some useful info from the anons and that will stop if semi-protection is imposed. EdJohnston 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What info could they possibly give? All they have been giving so far is hearsay. No sources, nothing that can be put into articles. Just personal attacks against living people, with threats of legal action being thrown about. We shouldn't touch this with a 100 meter pole. nadav 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined; vandalism doesn't seem heavy enough to justify the extreme measure of semi-protecting a talk page. Krimpet (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The page has been protected for almost two months, after an edit war over a dispute about place names. Of the two editors most involved, one has said nothing at all during the intervening time period and has, in particular, not argued against the assertion that his edits were at odds with Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy. Because of this, protecting the page has not resolved the issue, and I think the page should now be unprotected. Meowy 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected 2 months is a longtime. Willing to try unprotection- the page will however be protected again should the edit war resume. WjBscribe 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism since the start of NHL playoffs. Mus Musculus (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not sure there's enough activty to justify protection and serveral IP editors have removed vandalism not spotted by more regular contributors anyway... WjBscribe 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect - Since last week, the vandalism by anonymous users has increased dramatically. The article is now edited more than 10 times a day, and most edits are either vandalism or the reversion of vandalism. Dr. Submillimeter 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. Krimpet (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi protection Ever since the last semi-protection was removed the article has been daily vandalized. Cloud02 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Krimpet (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=127148433"