Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aivazovsky (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 5 August 2006 (Forgot to sign my request). 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 of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.

    I got a request to protect this article at my talk. Oddly, I was listed at a related mediation case, in spite of never having edited any effected article. Nevertheless, I'd rather avoid even the slightest chance of their being confusion about my level of involvement. The issue is that unfree images (team logos) are being repeatedly inserted into the article, in spite of the fact that their status under Wikipedia:Fair use criteria policy is disputed. In this case it may well be better to protect the page than to block the editors adding in the unlicensed images, since there is more than one user involved, and time may well be needed to explain how we handle unfree content here. As an aside, I note that there is significant discussion going on about the use of logos, but we shouldn't be publishing them in articles while their licensing and policy status is disputed. Jkelly 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request permenant semi-protection. The article receives multiple spams a day. Computerjoe's talk 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 20:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection - Article is being vandalized by a recurring IP address. It has been reverted several times by several users, but it is not stopping. --Stephy 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection - a large ammount of Vandalism from IP address' make this a prime candidate for semi-portection, especially seeing as the article pertains to a current event. Thε Halo Θ 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request semi-protection - article hit hard by what appears to be a sock of a banned user, seemingly (to me, using the tools I have avilable) using IPs from open proxies. WegianWarrior 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. - Edit warring between Grandmaster and TigranTheGreat. -- Clevelander 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user EditingOprah and his sock puppet have continued to revert edits made by others including myself. He does not follow the procedures for reverting. He offers no explanation except a short response in the note with the edit which has already been addressed. THe three revert rule applies, I clearly positioned myself for it. I request he either be blocked/banned from editing this page, or the page itself be blocked indefinitely until this issue is permanently resolved. WIOthout administration, he is arbitrarily and unilaterally controlling the article, undoing work done by many others over the past month or so. --Zaphnathpaaneah 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request full protection on this article, which has been the subject of an edit war over the past week resulting in three blocks for 3RR violations[1][2][3]. Even more users have come up against 3RR without going over recently, the definition of a heated edit war for which "cool down" protection is appropriate.

    The article has been subject to removal of any and all critisism for the past six months, usually by User:ED MD, formerly User:ER MD. ER MD/ED MD has managed five other blocks in the previous three months. There is plenty of detailed discussion of this behavior on Talk:Shock and awe.

    User:Starcare tried to resolve the issue with a survey. However, ED MD responded by trying to destroy and distort the survey[4][5][6], and when he was thwarted, and three people had opposed him with nobody supporting him, he started spamming his friends' talk pages to get more responses in his favor.

    Today, mediation was requested, but the edit war continued, with a 3RR block against Scribner, who ED MD had invited to help stack the survey. Starcare suggested requesting protection, and I concur.

    Because of this behavior problem on the part of ED MD, and my expectation that he will soon revert the article again to remove the sections which were supported by all of the survey respondents before he started asking his friends to join in, I ask that this version be protected until the disputes are resolved with mediation. I am an experienced editor and I will participate in mediation as well as I can. If the article is protected at the version I have requested, then at least ED MD and his recruits will be motivated to work towards a compromise in mediation. If one of ED MD's versions are protected, I suspect they will just stonewall mediation. Publicola 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would caution against protection at this time, as I think it would be more likely to bring a halt to discussion than further it -- there is plenty of discussion taking place now and the conflict has not become sterile. The tone of the last paragraph above and this section make clear, I think, the spirit in which protection is requested. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See now Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shock and awe as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest semi-protection as a user with a dynamic IP continues to reinsert spam links without Talk page discussion. I would impose the protection myself but I am an involved party. Full protection may also be warranted if this is considered a garden-variety edit war. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reducing to semi-protection per User:Kotepho (see here). The user who requested this page to be unprotected placed it in a wrong section. However, no one other than me had made any response to this request. The request was cleared out, and was neither fulfilled nor denied. -- ADNghiem501 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Featured article has been the target of vandalism. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has died down now; no protection needed. Lectonar 10:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection of British Shorthair. Page was s-protected before in response to NEDM vandalism. Page was unprotected after an edit conflict was resolved, and NEDM vandalism has returned as a result. --Targetter (Lock On) 23:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    • Article semi-protected because of anon vandals. The game comes out in a couple of days, and the vandals appear to be gone, and some of the best contributions to the article have been from anons. Please remove block. Travb (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:AOL (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

    Really no reason for full protection, in fact it's probably the only high profile vandalism target on wikipedia that isn't vandalized. Template is updated frequently, and anon AOL edits actually seem to help, I can point to a dozen times in the last month when anons have made formatting fixes, and so on, that would have other wise gone unnoticed.--AOL account 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lowered to Semi-protection. Voice-of-All 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

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

    Un-protected.. Voice-of-All 20:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Protected since 02:02, 31 July. Intensive discussion has taken place in the talk page. Mediation may be requested to help resolve some issues, but in the mean time, unprotect to see to what extent editors can collaborate to write the article in a balanced way. --Ezeu 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. Good luck. Rich Farmbrough 16:25 2 August 2006 (GMT).


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

    Full protection - This user responds to his indefinite block with a novel-length ramble containing threats, which has been reverted (and re-inserted) about 3-4 times already within 10-20 minutes. Editor88 02:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected Syrthiss 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection requested. Despite a discussion that has established the spelling of his name, users have continually and repeatedly changed it to the name's fan-preferred spelling on the article. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Disruption created by editor using multiple IP addresses that make it very difficult to edit this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See User_talk:71.74.209.82. Yes there is.... these six different IP addresses are the same person. Please reconsider. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Semi-protection. Waaaaaaaaay too much vandalism for a user talk page. —Khoikhoi 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm requesting that the Police state article be semi-protected to protect against a persistent anonymous user continuously adding information that is unsourced and POV. We have asked him to cite his sources and explain himself but he instead says we are "tying to hide the truth" and reinserts it. - DNewhall 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP.Voice-of-All 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request semi-protection on this article to deal with persistent vandalism by User:Roitr/sockpuppeter. This article has been temporarily semi-protected in the past, but Roitr keeps coming back and reverting the same old edits when the protection is removed, so maybe it should be considered for longer-term semi-protection this time? Dr.frog 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. The rate is not high, but the numbers a very bad (see stats below, for lsat 50 edits) and this seems like annoying sock. Voice-of-All 00:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1 : 1.63 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
    10% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (5 edit(s))

    I request semi-protection on this article for 7 days; there have been numerous vandalisms on this article due to an episode of The Colbert Report where [Steven Colbert]] talks about Wikipedia and how he believes that Oregon is Washington's Mexico. There is already semi-protection on the Oregon and [The Colbert Report]] pages and I think there should be one on the [Washington]] page also — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMajinx (talk • contribs)

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I request semi-protection on this article for 3 days. There have been at least five instances of vandalism by IPs on the page in the last 24 hours due to this player's dismissal from a major college football team. This period will allow things to blow over and allow editors of the page to focus on other things and not reverting numerous vandals.--NMajdan•talk 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    edit war with vandal. Zeq 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring by Pilotguy. I'd leave it at that for now. Voice-of-All 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I request semi-protection on this article; there has been significant vandalism over the past 24 hours as inspired by this: http://www.readexpress.com/read_freeride/2006/08/post_41.php; see also the last item here: http://www.readexpress.com/read_freeride/2006/08/post_42.php; one IP address has been blocked already Subwayguy 13:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection please, to prevent continued blanking by anons. —Khoikhoi 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a range block for now.Voice-of-All 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection I am requesting that Anarcho-monarchism be locked until discussion can be made... So-called "true" anarchists continue to vandalize the page, and now are in the process of ensuring its deletion. Zadanian 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection to get rid of the IP editors who constantly try to contact the supposed real Stephen Colbert. Ryūlóng 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=67734875"