Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Just James (talk | contribs) at 11:54, 20 September 2007 (→‎{{lut|Rixo2222}}: remove Rixo2222, page has been protected). 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.


    User talk:4.157.113.241 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protect. IP user keeps blanking warnings and blocking template. Please protect until block expires.--Just James T/C 10:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Confusing Manifestation 04:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --DarkFalls talk 06:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect Repeated vandal attacks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined User is an admin so he could protect anytime he wants. --DarkFalls talk 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Continued high level of IP vandalism --- editors cannot keep up: a paragraph was lost in the reverting shuffle. Thanks! hike395 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --DarkFalls talk 06:52, 20 September 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.

    Protected for several months for normal causes. 68.39.174.238 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason for protection was, and I quote, "Heavy IP vandalism." -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected by Phaedriel. Now I almost still wish my username was "Llama man". — Malcolm (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected Two months since last protection... cross fingers this time we won't have to lock it down again after two days. I'll add it to my watchlist and see. Phaedriel - 01:04, 20 September 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 replace this template with the code found in User:FunPika/Drafts/Notability per WP:TS. FunPika 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Maxim(talk) 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. I've been in contact with the manager of Courtney Love's website and myspace page, and he would like certain inaccurate sections of the article regarding her new album, Nobody's Daughter, removed, including the image which has been posted as the album cover. This album cover has not been released yet and much of the track information is false. Matthewbdunn 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I have no way of verifying what you said is true or not. They should contact OTRS instead. Mr.Z-man 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been doing some major overhauling to the template, which was cut/pasted from a prototype on my user space to the template article. Unfortunately, there are still some minor bugs that need to be resolved, and it's difficult for me to get admins to make my requested changes. I'd like to request a temporary downgrade to semi-protection for one week in order to allow me to implement needed edits. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - just re-request here or contact me directly and I'll move it back up to full protection. Thanks for your work on the template. - Philippe | Talk 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor seems to have flown in to remove sourced content without explanation right before the article was protected. This was unrelated to the edit war that got it protected in the first place. The edits started right here. 21:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

    Would someone please to restore the content? Just64helpin 23:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done WjBscribe 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just what the hell is going on here? Why is this page protected from recreation? This is a damn good redirect to List of Pokémon Anime Films, but I can't do anything about this since the page is protected from recreation, yet I see nothing in the log. TheBlazikenMaster 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - I think that's a very valid point, especially given the page has actually never been created. If it becomes a problem later, we can deal with it in other ways - Alison ☺ 12:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and created that redirect.--Chaser - T 17:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am attempting to add useful and accurate information to this page, including links to relevant legislation and comparisons to other jurisdictions. I request that the entry be reverted to my last edit, or some reasonable variation. jbdelaporte 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - we're not going to revert to a previous version, which would have us taking part in an edit war. You may use the {{editprotected}} tag on the article talk page, with your suggested changes, and we can evaluate whether to make those changes on your behalf. - Philippe | Talk 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this very confusing. I thought the instructions were to only use the tag for a minor edit.jbdelaporte 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR‎ I asked for a large number of reversions in content disputes by the user Francis Tyers. The article were protected by all the Wiki users in last variant reverted by Francis Tyers. Some parts of reverts even arent explained in the talk page! For example he never explains why he readded "large number" term, deleted <fact> tag despite no citations from the HRW and Memorial Human Rights Center provided etc (he tried to explain only why he deleted some links which he marks as "hysteric"). I request that the entry be reverted to the last edit by Pocopocopocopoco or some reasonable variation. Andranikpasha 10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Should discuss this on the article talk page. Navou banter 13:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Full protection Edit war. Also look in history, I think at least one guy went over the 3RR. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Mr.Z-man 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Attracting a heck of a lot of IP and new user vandalism lately, for some reason. RedSpruce 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi and full for move. Sick vandalism today. The Evil Spartan 01:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected As requested, for one month. Maxim(talk) 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotection Main page featured article which has not received more than usual edits. Please unprotect. 76.31.143.244 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There were 247 edits to the article during the 24-hour period of the 19th, and 95% (guestimation) of them were vandalism related (either vandalism or reverts there of). And, the article was protected for a portion of that time. Now this policy of letting anyone edit Wikipedia is great, but when it gets to the point that good editors are spending too much time just policing vandalism, maybe this policy needs to be reviewed. How productive is it to spend time just reverting garbage? Think of how much better it would be to spend quality time just contributing quality edits. Now of course I want just anyone to edit, but if they can't login and establish a track record of quality editing on "junior" articles, well, why the heck not. And this not protecting featured articles, anybody want to explain that to me? Spending all this time just fixing vandals, rude people, spamvertizers, and other no-quality edits, etc, is just a NON-PRODUCTIVE waste of time. It is STUPID! Not all policies are written in concrete. Slavery used to be legal too. WikiDon 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even equating protection of an article to slavery in the mildest form obliderates any pursuasiveness your arguement may have had. Maybe I don't want an account or maybe I have one but don't wish to log in when not using my personal computer. Regardless, those who choose to edit without an account should not be locked out of an article simply because it is "feature". That is stupid. 76.31.143.244 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection +expiry 1 year, Full protection: Vandalism, For the page to be sheiled from vandalism..The source of the cosmos... 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This is the help desk. Many of the users asking questions are anons. — Malcolm (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's asking for Full protection, which would also lock out people like myself. Still, he looks like he's asking for a preemptive strike, which is disallowed per WP:BP. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I sounded WP:BITEy, had a crapload of homework tonight. Hasn't been a great day... — Malcolm (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nolle perspiration. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Declined, protection is not supposed to be preemptive. While your intention to help is good, and I sincerely commend you for it, this page is used by many anonymous and newly registered users to ask their first questions about Wikipedia; thus, even semi protection (not to mention full protection) would completely defeat its very purpose. Phaedriel - 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But I meant from vandals... It's protection from vandals... Oh well!--The source of the cosmos... 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandals fall into the anonymous-user and registered-user categories, and you cannot protect an article from them without locking out at least one of the two. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection +expiry 1 year, Unprotection, To keep the page from being vandilized..The source of the cosmos... 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (Btw, I'm assuming you meant "protection", as the page has in fact never been protected - am I right?) Phaedriel - 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay... Just trying to help.--The source of the cosmos... 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a side note, preemptive protection is generally not allowed. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. The 8th protection in a year ended yesterday and it's already vandalized 4 times since, by an IP, a 2 hours old account, and twice by a few minutes old account. This title will always attract vandals. PrimeHunter 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Phaedriel - 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:68.75.168.79 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    unprotection Unprotection, User is no longer blocked.The Evil Spartan 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Phaedriel - 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection Unprotection, No reason this should be indef fully protected.The Evil Spartan 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Protection was issued just 4 days ago. This should be discussed with the protecting admin before unprotecting. Phaedriel - 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semiprotection - Flood of joke edits over the last day, settling down to a revert war. Doceirias 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semiprotection - Extremely high level of IP and new-user vandalism: rapidly approaching 100 vandalism edits from more than 15 different IPs on Sept 19 alone. --Rrburke(talk) 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. two-week sprot expired this morning, and now 3 separate IP vandals under 4 hours. Pro crast in a tor 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism. τßōиЄ2001 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Heightened vandalism.~Eliz81(C) 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, vandalism immediately after protection lifted.~Eliz81(C) 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Protection only expired yesterday and considering that the vandalism rates vary, I'd like to give this a little bit of time before reprotecting. Leave me a message or come back here in a few days if vandalism continues. – Steel 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to have been semi-protected by User:Maxim. ~Eliz81(C) 20:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=159149142"