Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TamerSaadeh (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 17 November 2006 (→Current requests for protection). 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.

    Request for semi-protection, to block anonymous edits. User:68.40.161.247, an IP address with no other edits, has repeatedly removed the mention of Ford's long-time companion, Elise Matthesen, from the page. As noted on the talk page, that IP address has not answered requests to explain its edits. Also noted there, Elise does want her name mentioned, and Mike would have wanted it as well. (See comment by PNH, who is a close friend of hers and was a close friend of his. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Recieves a constant barage of vandalism by anonymous IPs.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for semi-protection. An annon user (62.148.34.4 and 217.148.144.231 among others) has been repetadly reinserting Jeffrey Abbott to the list. Note: the Jeffrey Abbott page is already protected against recreation. --T-rex 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page needs to be Semi-protected because of a certain anonymous user keeps on deleting the ENTIRE page and leaving remarks like "I'll suck it for u" in its place. He actually writes that in the edit summary, like he doesn't even care what he is doing. He's been doing this over and over and over again. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    Today is launch day for the PS3, as soon as page was unlocked vandals struck. --Awakefield 17:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The same rumor going around that Tom Hanks died is also going around for Dane Cook. Ther was been quite a bit of reverting going on in the past couple days due to this. Request semi-protection for a few days until it subsides. --Wizardman 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I recomment that Ak Koyunlu be protected due to edit war over inclusion of a name and banners and no discussion of the issue on talk page, including an administrator Khoikhoi participating in removal or addition without talk page discussion.[1] KP Botany 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Just for the record, these are actually two simultaneous but unrelated edit wars. One between a group of Iranian and a group of Turkish users, about two navigation infoboxes identifying the topic as part of Turkish or Iranian history respectively; and another instigated by Karcha (talk · contribs), who has been unilaterally removing historical Arabic spellings of Ottoman Turkish names from multiple article. Khoikhoi seems to be involved only in the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected both this and the sister article Kara Koyunlu, and blocked two of the main participants for revert-warring across multiple articles in parallel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend that Hilary Duff be semi-protected due to blatant and frequent vandalism by anon users and a few newly registered users who simply have accounts to vandalize. Quasyboy 11:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend semi-protection for this article. I've had it watchlisted for two years and the majority of edits lately are vandalism. The problem has escalated in recent months. —Psychonaut 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's on my watchlist now though. -- Steel 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP-hopping Anon keeps adding actors to the article which don't have a part in this movie. Please semi-protect. See here:

    --Plumcouch Talk2Me 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP-hopping Anon keeps adding actors to the article which don't have a part in this movie. Please semi-protect. See here:

    --Plumcouch Talk2Me 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP-hopping Anon keeps adding actors to the article which don't have a part in this movie. Please semi-protect. See here:

    --Plumcouch Talk2Me 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Page protection is not for resolving content disputes; try talking to the editor first, at least. -- tariqabjotu 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. Either one person with a dynamic IP, or multiple people, keep editing this article to include red links (which they then edit the talk pages for) and add 'sponsored by...' and then a letter and a number. Looking at the talk pages created by this user, they then add more Sesame Street-style junk. - Malkinann 11:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection. Due to the word's slang meaning, this disambiguation page is under constant drive-by vandalism by anonymous editors: legitimate edits are completely drowned out. (A previous semi-protection request was denied due to insufficient activity, but just look at the page's edit history.) --Piet Delport 04:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 05:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Getting tired of continually reverting false information added by IPs over the past few days. Dar-Ape 04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection due to constant vandalism from "various IP addresses". FLCLFan 04:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No recent vandalism, and IP address has been warned. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection because of anonymous IPs posting extremely non-NPOV material, leading to an edit war. Robocracy 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection, and anynymous Ip adress who I suspect is a German nationalist with whom I have had many conflicts with in the past continuously to remove referenced information and makes personal attacks. Please semi-protect the page, so he'll stop or at least will make an account. Rex 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - both users blocked for edit warring; consequences in terms of Arbcom probation will be investigated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. The page has been vandalized more than a dozen times in the last twenty-four hours, due to the upcoming Ohio State/Michigan game on Saturday. I don't predict that the situation will improve at all as Saturday approaches. Fedallah 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC) we at wikipedia eat children[reply]

    Semi-protected Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 15 November 2006 (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 change to WP:EL that just happened moots the argument about the disputed section. It now has to go. So, please unprotect. Thanks! BenBurch 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We do seem to have both sides agreeing that the changed policy ends the dispute. See the talk page.--BenBurch 19:52, 17 November 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.

    Requesting the placement of template:protected on this page to indicate its current status. John254 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.--Húsönd 03:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    This article is fully protected due to very nasty vandalism. However it seems this was done by only one person and it is very likely this person has already left. Vandalism was also done using sockpupets therefore new accounts. I think that semi protection would be sufficient. Milton Friedman has died yesterday and I think this will bring new people to the page and some of them might want to improve article. This is why I think article should be editable. --Jan.Smolik 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    has been semiprotected for about three weeks.The Pink Panther 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- Steel 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requestion semi-protection.
    Page was recently unprotected from anonymous users. Page was vandalized 11 times already today by anonymous users. Flibirigit 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting semi-protection. This page as well as University of Michigan have been vandalized recently due to the rivalry game on Saturday. Vandalism frequency has increased daily as the game approaches. I suspect it will subside by the middle of next week. Terryfoster 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There's been a few good faith edits as well as vandalism. I'll keep it on my watchlist and revert stuff myself when I see it and protect if it becomes necessary. -- Steel 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. This page as well as University of Michigan have been vandalized recently due to the rivalry game on Saturday. Vandalism frequency has increased daily as the game approaches. I suspect it will subside by the middle of next week. Terryfoster 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Level of vandalism is quite low. Let people edit. -- Steel 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. This page as well as University of Michigan have been vandalized recently due to the rivalry game on Saturday. Vandalism frequency has increased daily as the game approaches. I suspect it will subside by the middle of next week. Terryfoster 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Level of vandalism is quite low. Let people edit. -- Steel 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting full-protection. This page is being changed by User Verklempt repeatedly, with unpublished and unverified work and no discussion on it. The information contained within this article is racially bias and has no bearing on current facts or the history of the subject. The document in question is on the authors personal website and found nowhere else. ramapoughnative1 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected -- Steel 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. This page is being repeatedly vandalised, with offensive and defamatory remarks, by a series of new accounts, apparently set up purely for this purpose.wbassham 11:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. There's only one new account, and it appears to be editing productively. -- Steel 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection for this page because of recent vandalism from some IP addresses. They have spread rumours that apparently Dean was married and other libellious things.shaggy9872004 09:26, 17 November 2006 (AEST)

    Declined. Little vandalism these past two days, and there wasn't much to begin with. Looks like there's an admin down watching over it anyway. -- Steel 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The attacks leading to protection were probably of short term motivation. Please unprotect the article as soon as possible. all the best Lear 21 12:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected. Give it a little more time. -- Steel 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was semi-protected as per my request here because of vandalism by a roving IP, on November 3rd. I think we can remove it now. Tintin (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- Steel 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article was protected in 5 November, we had long discussions in talk page (one new archive since protection) and there are a lot of other things to add in the article, even not related with the original dispute (for example, the closure of Rîbniţa office of Transnistrian Communist Party [16]). I propose remove protection or change to semi-protection.--MariusM 09:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that is premature. The main disputes have not been solved, and the person who requests unprotection is one of the edit warriors. Moreover, he has not participated suffiently on Talk yet to seek consensus. - Mauco 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected There's still masses of discussion going on on the talk page. It doesn't appear that there's consensus yet. -- Steel 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting semi-protection. This page is being repeatedly vandalised, with offensive and defamatory remarks, by a series of new accounts, apparently set up purely for this purpose. Blocking and vandalism warnings have no effect, as the account is then abandoned and another set up.RolandR 11:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting short-term full protection of both articles. The former of the two articles is currently undergoing mediation via e-mail. The second article is a related person. The two users Rgfolsom and Smallbones have begun edit-warring again, even while mediation is taking place. They are the two primary contributors to both articles currently. To allow them to settle their differences, I am requesting temporary protection to at least stop the edit warring while we attempt to mediate this conflict.

    On behalf of the Mediation Committee, ^demon[yell at me] 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have Fully protected Robert Prechter but Declined Socioeconomics because they haven't really been reverting each other for a couple of days. It's on my watchlist. -- Steel 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting full protection. One editor, editing primarily from an IP address, is going without consensus and continuously reducing the size of images in this featured article. I was working (and had already started) on adding references and expanding the text substantially, but now find myself continuously reverting his additions which are being made with no consensus. This editor has been asked by at least two others to keep the images at a set size as can be found in a number of featured articles of similar content.[17]. Request full protection since this editor has also informed us he is editing drom a dynamic IP, hence, no reason to block him I assume.[18]--MONGO 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, IP is probably same editor as CamperStrike (talk · contribs) [19], though I have not request RFCU yet.--MONGO 09:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. --Aude (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After requesting semi-protection of Saxifrage's user page due to anonymous vandalism a couple of days ago, I checked Saxifrage's talk page, and discovered that a large group of trolls were harassing him due to his deleting the Genmay article. This has escalated to Saxifrage being featured on Digg, posting of Saxifrage's personal information and threats to his family. Please semi-protect, to protect him from being harassed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected by User:Improv. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The section under dispute is at most four lines of text in a much larger article, and hardly requires full protection. The two sides seem to be completely entrenched in their postions, and if a resolution were waited for, this article would remain locked forever. I suggest that this get changed to semi-protection to at least prevent IP anons from extending the number of reverts per day, or removed entirely as this is a "tempest in a teapot" issue. BenBurch 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. WinHunter (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    there is no evidence of "vandalism" can be found from history. Is SP really necessary? 70.52.65.154 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Its still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. WinHunter (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection because of recent vandalism from various IP addresses. Derlay 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 02:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting full protection due to the ongoing edit-war, until all disputes are resolved on the discussion page. --ManiF 23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 23:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tired of seeing this show up on my watchlist; but I'm too involved in the article to protect it. Full protection please. Khoikhoi 23:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid64 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Consistant and increasing vandalism from numerous IP addresses and certain new user accounts, it has been reverted 17 times today alone. Weatherman90 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I blocked the IP range for a week. This may warrant contacting the State of North Dakota Information Services Division, to which these IPs are registered. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - this article has been under attack intensively by numerous IPs and some newly registered users for quite some time. The last 50 edits are almost entirely vandalism and their reverts. Weatherman90 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I blocked the IP range for a week. This may warrant contacting the State of North Dakota Information Services Division, to which these IPs are registered. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection Could someone please protect this page? It has become a constant edit war, mostly over the use of the word 'kidnap'. If you look at the page history it seems like it has been going on forever; we have discussed it over and over again on the talk page; neither side will give in. Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Fully protected —Centrx→talk • 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the protect. You have done a great service. Storm Rider (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Constant attack by anon user using different IP's. This has been going on for most of the year. Sfacets 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection due to constant vandalism, mostly from IPs. --Jackhorkheimer 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection due to large amounts of IP vandalism. Green451 19:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not enough activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection, may just need it temporarily, repeated unsigned user vandalistic attacks at present. MarkThomas 18:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection, article has been attacked daily by anonymous IPs.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection There's a rumor going around the Internet that Tom Hanks is dead but this article proves it isn't true and the craze has happened due to people being tricked by a create your own news site. Various IPs have already written that Hanks is dead and I think the vandalism may get worse as the afternoon hours progress. Gdo01 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Semi-protection. Constant petty editing and vandalism by anonymous users that has required user intervention more than 20 times in the last week. Chief offenders a dynamic IP that has repeatedly inserted the same comment. Thankyou.--Koncorde 21:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Steel 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=88487945"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy