Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrKay (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 21 June 2007 (→{{la|Amir Taheri}}: declined). 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 - User Theshape4 has created a new account for the purpose of circumventing semi-protection on the article Michael Lucas (porn star). Given the pattern of IP edits yesterday, if this user is blocked, another will take his place. It appears that Lucas is serious about these edits. One, under miscellanea, is clearly a violation of BLP on another individual. -Jmh123 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - serious WP:BLP issues - Alison ☺ 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect - Several months ago we had the page sprot'd for the same reason. Anonymous IPs from the same net block (probably the same editor) repeatedly inserts a singular incident into an overview section. This has been covered multiple times on the talk page -- he refuses to acknowledge or discuss. Thanks! /Blaxthos 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify what the above meant, anon users have been adding a sourced statement about Kennedy's continued opposition to the Cape Wind project under the energy policies views in the political views section. The user and others have removed this statement since they want only Pro-Kennedy information on the page. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect — daily insertion of non-EL compliant links by IPs and socks with the threat to do so indefinetly.[1] ✤ JonHarder talk 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request full protection immediately. It's the front page article for today and has already suffered from a rash of vandalism because of it. I don't know how no one requested this before. Thank you.--Loodog 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection? Chris Cunningham 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the page history log, and tell me how protection isn't warranted. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, - main page article. There are hundreds of eyes on it & it's being reverted very quickly - Alison ☺ 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being vandalized every 5 minutes. We can barely keep up. I can't think of a reason to not do this.--Loodog 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - there are constructive edits being made by anon contributors [2] [3], so it's not all bad. For a mainpage article, it's not being hit nearly as bad as I've seen others - Alison ☺ 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article needs to be fully protected to prevent another edit warring and revert warring. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And also, List of Virtual Console games (Europe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Edit war. Again. >Radiant< 12:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:PD-release is fully protected. That template's sole contents are {{PD-author}} followed by some interwiki links. The protection thus achieves precisely nothing unless Template:PD-author is protected as well. In fact, why isn't Template:PD-release simply a protected redirect to Template:PD-author? – Gurch 12:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Alison ☺ 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war: User:Spartanadad and User:Zanderrose are trying to push biased POV edits. I asked some weeks ago that an admin observes this article regularly, which was declined. Now there is a full-scale edit war. Please revert to a version pre-Santanadad and protect now until an admin agrees to observe this article. --85.181.19.137 11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect when current full protection expires. Last time it was unprotected an edit war immediately started. Many IPs who never discuss on the talk page or edit other articles contributed.Ultramarine 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect is vandilised at least every two out of three days, usually by ips Blacksmith2 talk 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. There is an edit war going on also at Political positions of Fred Thompson. Fully sourced information keeps getting removed with no reasons provided.--JGoldwater 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article, unlike the article on Fred Thompson himself, is in an edit war. I recuse myself from applying the protection, but I agree that it should be protected. In Fred Thompson, the issue is one of WP:BLP and a passage that violates BLP - it is not a legitimate dispute. This article, on the other hand, is. --BigDT 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that JGoldwater has been blocked, I don't think protection is needed. JGoldwater is a new user, intent apparently on pushing an anti-Thompson POV in both articles. He seems not to understand NPOV or undue weight. Sbowers3 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, semi-protection might be a good idea. JGoldwater was new as of 18 June and would have been blocked. There are indications on the main Fred Thompson page that JGoldwater is coming back as an IP user. Sbowers3 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. This article is being continously vandalized by ExcellentEditor and TV2007 (both of whom, I suspect are sock puppets) with long, redundant and fancrufty edits and reverts. Please lock the article for the time being, until we can get this matter resolved. - WikiTweak 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Revert war, vandalism.--Ankimai 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Err, how about semi? Its only IP vandalism, not established users. ~ Wikihermit 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IP will probably return as Nyisnotbad, then. He did it before (see Amir-Abbas Fakhravar as well.--Ankimai 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I have placed messages on the talk pages of the 4 most recent IPs. You should do the same for any new IPs. If the problem comes back, or they ignore the warning messages, come back to us. DrKiernan 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection: Dispute, Revert warring on a controversial article. Videmus Omnia 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by User:Chaser - Alison ☺ 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Purposeful deletion of information to promote individual point of view by some editors. The controversy section itself is more than half of the article. 75.73.188.53 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Discussion is continuing on both article and user talk pages. DrKiernan 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full or just get rid of the problematic editor(s). Protection expired, reverting began. PouponOnToast 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - whatever it is has stopped now. No edits in two days - Alison ☺ 16:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect, preferably for a long time - Since the past few months, this article has been the target of extremely heavy edit warring between two parties. The article was subjected to two spells of full-protection, one for one month and another for two weeks, but as soon as the protection was lifted, the users involved started to abuse the undo button. Of particular annoyance are the users who seem to be employees/students of the said institute who do not discuss their unilateral reverts and keep blanking validly cited information which is unfavourable to their institute. Request full-protection until disputes can be resolved (hopefully) via an acceptable third-party mediation. Thank you, Max - You were saying? 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Anon user kept changing the money board. The current money board is the one used by the show, but anon kept changing it despite the hidden warning, obviously not watching the show. This is the nth time he did this and the nth time I reverted it. Please respond ASAP and don't decline this; this is serious. - 上村七美 | talk 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +cascade, Semi-protection, main userpage text, user requesting protection --trey 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection I don't know why the user hasn't requested this, but there has been a wack-load of vandalism by multiple IP's lately. Maybe a 1-2 day protection may help--JForget 00:52, 17 June 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.

    The vandalism has stopped, I believe an unprotection is in order, if you please. --DodgerOfZion 03:52, 21 June 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.

    Please change it to the version seen at User:TWENCIL4/MediaWiki:Blockedtext. --TWENCIL4 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Please change the birthplace of Charles Dickens from Landport Portsmouth to Buckland Portsmouth. As his home is now a museum it should be correct. Old Commercial Rd is in Buckland not Landport.

    ZScout370 has deleted a substantial article redirected anyone from this page to four times since 13 June an. Tizio has protected the page. These actions have eliminated a substantial article. The last edit by 146.115.58.152 should be restored and protected against ZScout370's vandalism.

    Declined - talk to the protecting administrators who seem to have good reasons. Accusing them of vandalism is a bad idea. Kusma (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zscout370 provided no information in the "Mark Hearn" page discussion as to why he had taken action. This by itself violates the spirit of the Wikipedia which asks that major changes be commented on and justified in the discussion. After I inquired ZScout370 wrote that someone (no identification) sent an email asking that the article be removed and ZScout370 redirected it. ZScout370 provided no further information. This has no explicative power whatsoever. I have put a series of questions about this action on ZScout370's talk page. To justify ZScout370 action, to show that it was not vandalism, ZScout370 should provide satisfactory answers, such as, in what way was the article unfair or incorrect. Please note that in asking this I am not claiming that the article was fair or correct, but a short search shows that it was pretty accurate, with much of the information coming from Hearne's own bio at his law firm.
    Removal and protection was based on an OTRS action, which I left in the edit summary. That is all I can say, due to the private nature of OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Double- Declined. Daniel 05:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone needs to change this redirect. The movie has its own article now, and will most likely stay that way. Oh and the article to the movie is Saw IV. TheBlazikenMaster 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - or, more precisely, I have deleted the redirect as unnecessary. You may create it again if you need it. Kusma (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect. IPs describe the mention of IRS documents regarding annual funding of organization as "biased" and "opinions", and delete such references without using the Talk Page to explain why the IRS is biased.--Bhuck 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Alison ☺ 07:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Digwuren continue to push their article version, which is a translation of one source. They don't address points listed on the talk page. I'm continuing to revert the article to the previous state and now request page protection. Cmapm 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The assertion of 'translation of one source' is false, as can be seen in the reference list.
    Furthermore, the article has been protected, and it didn't help. To the best of my recollection, Cmapm made not a single recommendation for improvement during the weeks of protection. Digwuren 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined for now. But the article is POV. The pro-Estonian anti-Soviet diatribe should be removed and the article written more neutrally. DrKiernan 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. IPs and newbies (disgruntled students) trying to use as message board Jim Dunning | talk 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect, the big event is attracting annoying vandalism. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Michael Greiner 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP 71.237.163.71 vandalism. Alec1990 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. blocked the main anon vandal (he was not being warned but hit the article over 10 times??) - the 'fuktard' guy + incarnations has already been blocked for username twice - Alison ☺ 23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - the 'fuktard' vandal came back even when ACB was enabled. *sigh* - Alison ☺ 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and about that, see my sockpuppetry case Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/Jpfuktard. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 03:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Michael Greiner 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect Apparently this site had a recent policy change which is causing multiple IP vandals to attack the article. Semi-protection for a few days seems like a good idea. -Chunky Rice 00:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. There is an edit war going on at Fred_Thompson. I have added some information sourced to a major newspaper but Thompson's supporters seem determined to keep it out. I don't know what's the right course of action usually taken under these circumstances but a page lock with the information in might be a good idea. --JGoldwater 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JGoldwater keeps adding under "Controversies" a fact that is neither controversial nor in any other way notable. Several editors have explained this on the Talk page, but s/he insists on adding it, without much more explanation than "it's notable because I say so". S/he's already in violation of 3RR:
    Zsero 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try Zsero, but those were not all reverts. Some were additions. And if this wasn't notable and controversial you wouldn't be so eager to keep it out. The burden is on you to prove the information I posted should be removed. --JGoldwater 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so. All five reverts are identical, as anyone can see by looking at them. Whom are you trying to fool? Zsero 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no edit war. There's an SPA trying to push a point of view by adding a loaded passage. Every neutral editor to review it has rejected it. --BigDT 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Post the links to the neutral editors who have rejected it. You made an assertion, now prove it. Only you and two other FDT supporters have been doing the deletions.--JGoldwater 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The one person to respond at the BLP noticeboard agreed that the section was inappropriate. Coemgenus also apparantly came to the article talk page as a result of the request for review on BLPN and he agreed that it should be removed. You and Tvoz are the only editors supporting this language. In addition to these two completely neutral users, Zsero, Sbowers3, Elliskev, and I have removed it or endorsed its removal. --BigDT 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have s-protected the article as an emergency measure based on this edit [4] admitting to meat puppetry and threatening organized action. I, obviously, am an involved user and thus I submit this action here for review with my full permission for any uninvolved admin to do whatever. --BigDT 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    JGoldwater, who originally made this request for protection, was blocked for 3RR, and almost immediately IP addresses started showing up to reapply the exact same change that JGoldwater was blocked for. Make of that what you will. Zsero 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the article should have full protection, nor do I think semi-protection was warranted. The admin who installed sprot is far frpm neutral - he is involved in the argument and should have requested a neutral admin to review the situation before putting sprot into effect. That admin is claiming a BLP problem, which is not supported by the facts. A simple, neutral item was placed in a "controversies" section - with two reliable sources. The sources report that the matter is controversial, but they state it neutrally as well. No one has adequately demonstrated why this might be in violation of BLP, and I note that other political articles have far more "controversies" included, with far less justification or neutrality. There is POV pushing going on here, both in the removal of legitimate material and in the use of admin tools in a possibly biased manner. There is no emergency at all here - it is a content dispute that could use some outside input into - but to jump to protection and yell "BLP" without good reason is inappropriate. I do not know anything about sock or meat puppetry here - I am not related to any other editor on this pafge, and in fact never encountered most of them before. Tvoz |talk 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A better version of events would be that an SPA, who was already on his second single-purpose account, added a biased passage to the article five times and was blocked. After being blocked, he or a meat puppet returned as an IP and threatened further disruption. At any rate, I have asked here and on the talk page for an uninvolved admin to review the protection and make a decision to leave it in place or remove it without being prejudiced by my emergency decision. --BigDT 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of 6 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It is expected that discussion should start on whether this should be included and the revert waring stop. The 3RR block was appropriate as well, and semi-protection as an emergency basis to stop the IP who appears to be the 3RR blocked user from inserting the same material seems okay, though seeking outside help before that point probably would have been a better idea. If consensus is reached before the 6 weeks, protection can be lifted. If unable to resolve together, please seek help with the dispute resolution process. Always remain calm, AGF and civil and discuss the issue instead of revert waring please. MECU≈talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. Revert war seems to be starting. Newly created user Occham keeps reverting to a complete re-write of the article. V3programmer 23:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - only happened twice and the editor has never been approached. Please try discussing the matter on his talk page & maybe point out the 3RR policy - Alison ☺ 23:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Revert war seems to be starting up again. Several users insist on adding prices (Wii points) into tables despite the information already existing in the intro. Chaz Beckett 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - everybody's still talking, far as I can see - Alison ☺ 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Article is under attack from the same user who was repeatedly blocked for 3RR violations and cause the protection on several articles. My 3RR report has so far been ignored and the user has switched to yet another IP address. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - I'd rather not, as other anon editors are making constructive edits. I've blocked one of the main sock-IPs, which was way over the 3RR limit - Alison ☺ 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect due to COI editing by multiple IPs. Videmus Omnia 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Yet another new editor, User:Drogheda, is trying to insert pro-Pedophile POV into child sexual abuse. Two editors were just banned and the protection was just lifted last night. The legitimate points made in this new edit are already addressed in the entry, and a specific addition is intended to place emphasis on the belief that child sexual abuse does not harm children: "it is not scientifically sound to assume that violation of the social norms lead to harm for the child or adolescent". This is simply incorrect; there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate harm. He keeps reverting and is already getting contentious. Thanks. -Jmh123 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this summary. Maybe a check user should be run to see if this new editor is one of the banned ones? SamDavidson 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. Alison ☺ 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - I initially blocked User:Drogheda for 3RR violation on the aforementioned article but they have now been indefinitely blocked by ArbCom ruling - Alison ☺ 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected initially, but then unprotected now that the problematic user has been blocked. --Coredesat 00:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The moderator BigDT who has an established bias in favor of Fred Thompson is only allowing information to be posted selectively depending on whether it fits his agenda. This page should be unprotected so that everyone can contribute without bias or at least the latest reversals should be undone.--74.220.207.95 22:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the above RFP request for a full background. Thus IP is a sock of a SPA user currently blocked for 3RR, who appeared immediately after the block to resume adding what the user was blocked for adding. --BigDT 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected Coredesat 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=139708217"