Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Animum (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 23 September 2007 (→{{la|Polymerase chain reaction}}: Response: page semi-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.

    A revert war concerning the neutrality of the presentation of the health hazards of smoking is brewing. Peter Isotalo 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, Consistent and repeated vandalism, all by unidentified users. I've reverted countless edits..Liempt 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection for a day or two due to high levels of IP Vandalism.– ornis⚙ 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. —[[Animum | talk]] 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - One apparent user using multiple IP address cover to edit war about the article's name. BusterD 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 18 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--JForget 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Long history of daily, persistent vandalism. NASCAR Fan24(talk•contribs) 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection – persistent vandalism – 217.44.23.69 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - Several IP users removing and reinserting massive chunks of material today. BusterD 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Crum375. east.718 at 22:38, September 23, 2007

    Full protect - Some sort of edit warring that's gone on for days now. -WarthogDemon 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - 10 days. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Dragonfiend 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - Philippe | Talk 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full move protection - keeps being pagemove vandalised (though has been moved in good faith error once). Move protected before because of its position on Special:Mostrevisions. Thanks! CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected – Steel 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full protection on my talk page so only admins can edit it. This request was neither fulfilled or denied but cleared from the page as if it were old for some reason, so this is a repost. The reason is admin wannabes stalking it.. it's getting annoying. Wwefan980 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Steel 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting indefinite semi protection. This one douche who's pissed because he could use British spellings in one article a long time ago has been personally attacking me ever since. He vandalizes both my user and talk pages, spams me on MSN, and even spams my deviantArt page. I've blocked him on the latter two, and my user page has been semi protected. I feel that it's now necessary for my talk page as well. We've tried blocking him numerous times but he has a proxy. Enough is enough!GrandMasterGalvatron 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. The IP has been blocked for 1 week. Only IP who did disruption, maybe the block will make him stop, if more activity starts make another RFPP request. Also per the Wikipedia:Protection policy, talk pages cannot be protected indefinitely and also please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL after your comment above. Thanks!--JForget 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, though, I'm not fond of referring to someone as "this one douche". Seems horribly uncivil to me... - Philippe | Talk 18:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well mates, I can understand where you're coming from with the civil remarks and I'll try to work on that. I just hope you guys can sorta understand why I would say something of that nature though. This has been going on for several months if not nearly a year. But yeah, thanks for what you've done. I dbout it'll stop him for too long, so I'll be back here when he strikes again.GrandMasterGalvatron 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, For reasons I'm unable to understand, this article has been the target of a lot of uncoordinated ip vandalism over the past week or so... I'm not sure how long the protection should be in cases, like these, though..Gscshoyru 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Next time, it may be an indefinite semi-protection--JForget 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection at least for 2 weeks. Major edit wars. There has been an increase in pov pushing and reversion activity. It's chaos and no one seems to be on common ground. A protection, making way for discussion I feel is indeed warranted.Taharqa 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. or until dispute is resolved--JForget 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection +expiry 1 week, Full protection: Dispute, To provide cooling off period for edit war that includes vandalism.Afaprof01 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for one week. Use the time wisely to come to consensus please. - Philippe | Talk 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection , +expiry 1 week, Full protection: Vandalism, Lots of vandalism on my own talk page from idiots....Giggity Giggity GOO! 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--JForget 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Heavy IP vandalism.Karrmann 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection: Dispute, The article has been nominated for deletion, the articles nominator keeps on removing all the sources added to the article as 'Unreliable' just because he/she does not agree with it.NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly incorrect. I have left one of the references. Anyhow if the page is fully protected, how can it be improved to deal with the issues raised for deletion. A number of people have been crying for more reliable sources for the article Sinhala freedom 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Steel 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This article was semi protected a few weeks ago following constant edits by anon ip's as part of a legal case between Millar and a record producer Adam Lee. Now it's open again the article is being vandalised again. Yorkshiresky 12:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This article was semi protected a few weeks ago following constant edits by anon ip's as part of a legal case between Millar and a record producer called Adam Lee. Now it's open again the article is being vandalised again. Yorkshiresky 12:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection This article was requested protection a few weeks ago but was refused. It is being vandalised following constant edits by anon ip's as part of a legal case between Millar and a record producer called Adam Lee. Yorkshiresky 12:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protection A user keeps removing Category:Power ballads which is actually quite applicable. I fear that this will esclate into an edit war if it hasn't already. FMAFan1990 07:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Hey, why not actually contact the user and speak to him about it rather than continue to undo without comment? – Steel 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: High-visible template, Temporary protection placement upon article to keep newly registered users and unregistered users from editing this article. Please remove until deletion process is resolved..Don the Dev 07:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protection Persistent vandalism, The page is constantly under attack from vandals and the actual content has been totally demolished. Needs serious attention and immediate action.Realton 06:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There isn't enough vandalism for a semi-protection due the lack of reverts.--JForget 18:28, 23 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.

    unprotect - protected all summer as was Dr. Dre; however, vandalism has also been extremely rare in the past two months. --Andrewlp1991 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected--JForget 23:07, 22 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.

    User talk:Punk Boi 8 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    At User talk:Punk Boi 8#Block Appeal, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#User:Punk Boi 8]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- Satori Son 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At User talk:Hkelkar#No Personal Attacks, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive155#Xenophobia]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- Satori Son 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At User talk:TareTone#Problematic edits, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive136#User:TareTone]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- Satori Son 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Need to revert a vandalism...

    Giggity Giggity GOO! 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protection Persistent unsourced edits from wide range of IPs after unprotection. Will not slow down any time soon. Spellcast 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Full-protection Vandal who has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Is abusing the unblock template on his talkpage. NASCAR Fan24(talk•contribs) 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined One instance is not abuse. I will protect it if he goes on. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection +expiry 2 hours, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Massive amounts of vandalism from both IP edits and member edits.RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 10:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - why did you ask for a mere 120 minutes? This article was under very severe fire. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'd never used Twinkle to request page protection before and the 2 hours option was just there. Good job RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 10:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Persistent vandalism. Silversov 05:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — madman bum and angel 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. 85.165.193.28 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — madman bum and angel 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection +expiry 12 hours, Full protection: Vandalism, This page was ordered to be vandalized by btars due to a order on this Thread... Giggity Giggity GOO! 04:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Ongoing bias edits by those involved with CCA.

    semi-protect. Heavy Vandalism 69.179.60.219 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Heavy Vandalism 69.179.60.219 03:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Heavy Vandalism - removing sourced content with false edits summaries. Also replacing the picture with a made up picture. Just seemd to post me a spammed messages arguying the picture is ok to be placed there... --Wiz126 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. IP vandalism - removing sourced content with false edits summaries. Isarig 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect. A number of vandals are inserting an image of the ORLY owl in the infobox. ... discospinster talk 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree, this particular page along with Helmet was ordered to be vandalized by btards...--Giggity Giggity GOO! 04:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect anonymous user (4.242.*.*) edits and poor behavior (ignoring of all article discussions requesting appropriate edits, refusal to participate in article talk); activities expanding to other articles; encourage editor to register and use (hopefully) use single name to contribute; impossible to see overall user contributions otherwise —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this is a content dispute. See WP:DR for ideas about dispute resolution. - Philippe | Talk 02:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect anonymous user (4.242.*.*), see Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this is a content dispute. See WP:DR for ideas about dispute resolution. - Philippe | Talk 02:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect, also related Talk:Kraków/to do. High level of IP revert warring and now stalking by 207.102.64.214 (talk · contribs). Earlier also as 207.102.64.211 (talk · contribs), 207.102.64.201 (talk · contribs), 207.102.64.97 (talk · contribs) and 207.102.64.168 (talk · contribs). Demands others to use talk, but does not himself, registers neither.  Matthead discuß!     O       23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. 207.102.64.0/24 blocked for 72 hours. – Steel 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I worked on this article for several months adding sections, images, new references, writing sister articles etc. I also submitted Kraków twice to FAC even though the article was not promoted. User:Matthead never worked on in before and made his first series of unilateral edits only two days ago, when his conduct was put under scrutiny following his support for an unreasonable ban.[1] What I’m concerned about is that the series of edits made by Matthead have been ratified by User:Steel359 in his rollback, with no consideration given to their merits. Now User:Matthead acts as if he WP:OWN the article with User:Steel359’s support, adding increasingly more questionable edits to the article, removing entire paragraphs, practically reversing Polish history.[2] Please look at the following revisions: Kraków, in Matthead’s view, was “the capital of various incarnations”… “neighboring European areas”… [It was] “Already weak during the 18th century” (an outright lie of course if you know anything at all about Polish history), etc. For your information, Matthead is a German editor concerned mainly with soccer. What he did to the article on Kraków frightens me. What frightens me even more is that no-one can stop him now. --Poeticbent talk 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Poeticbent, please discuss content at the article's talk page, and stop making accusations like "never worked on it before", which are contradicted by the history of the article and its talk. As for your further statements: No comment. -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=159895578"