Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VoABot (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 24 June 2007 (BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. [PR: 14 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 14]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


"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:ColScott (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection Full protection: User talk of banned user, User is using his page as a soap box and attacking other users ~ Wikihermit 23:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, - I don't like the guy, but per the talk page and User:JzG, it needs to stay open for communication - Alison ☺ 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tell him to go away. Or die. Either way is okay."
    Is this what now passes for "necessary communication" around here? What's the point of not linking to attack sites, if we're going to be one ourselves?Proabivouac 00:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection' Continued vandalism. One user posted on talk page that he's being vandalising for a year now. Princesskirsty 23:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - low-level but WP:BLP concerns / page not being reverted quick enough - Alison ☺ 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, – N96 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - warn / report those two anon editors - Alison ☺ 23:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:72.29.68.51 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection Semi-protection, {{unblock}} abuse — N96 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.. Um, yeah. If they keep at it, feel free to request again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Continued vandalism Maxwell Kramer 22:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - intense vandalism from anon editors. NOTE: move protection has been carried forward, too - Alison ☺ 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, - main page article (silly me) - Alison ☺ 23:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Continued vandalism in lue of movie coming out. Dreamy 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Alison ☺ 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anonymous block evading sock puppet comes back with a new IP every time and is removing sourced text repeatedly. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection, Edit warring WooyiTalk to me? 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. – Steel 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, An IP is trying to change the content of a retired users user page here Until(1 == 2) 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It is verified on the user's talk page that the IP is the retired user who no longer knows their login info. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: anonymous users regularly re-adding Thierry Henry to squad list despite deal not being complete and comments left on article to point this out. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Content dispute, many IP editors adding information relating to non-notable characters as per the consensus on notability that was reached on the subject. Any removal results in a much older edit from earlier this year including unnecessary information being reintroduced by one specific IP editor who recently changed IP addresses. --treelo talk 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi-protection should not be used in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistent revisions by IP's to revert back to incorrect and unreferenced information.

    Semi-protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:35, 23 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]

    Declined - edit warring seems to have stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 23 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]

    Full protection now removed. An anonymous IP has already stated "let the edit war begin again"[1]Ultramarine 09:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - at present, there's not enough activity, and semi protection isn't to be used to win an edit war with an IP. Please report again if edit warring continues. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protect or possibly infinite semi-protect since constantly bombarded by IP editors with quite a lot of vandalism due to the fact that everyone knows what is water. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - it's a high profile page so we should expect some vandalism to it, but at present, there is not enough to justify protection. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:56, 23 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.

    At least revert to a version not identified as vandalism if you're going to keep protected, e.g. 139907092. V3programmer 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Undid to non-vandalized version. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Liefeld

    After a dispute with User:B.Soto in April over the content of the article, largely due to my removal of defamatory or POV labels (e.g. "the most hated man in comics") and "criticisms" I and other editors (User:Mordicai, User:Michaelas10) thought were insufficiently sourced and violations of WP:BLP, the article was locked down. The article currently has no criticisms section, which I can't imagine satisfies anyone on either side of the debate, although I appear to be the sole remaining person who gives a crap. I went ahead and created a draft of the article with a new, appropriately sourced criticisms section at Talk:Rob Liefeld/unlocking Rob Liefeld draft on April 25, which seemed to meet with the approval of the editors already supporting my side of the argument but again not with User:B.Soto, who merely, unproductively continued to repost the old criticisms section on the article's talk page and his own user talk page.

    The issue has been argued at length, and it's true no assent has been forthcoming from User:B.Soto, who hasn't really edited in the last six weeks anyway, but I feel I've made every effort to address his concerns about the "sanitizing" of the article. On June 2 on the article's talk page, I posted a request for comment from editors, since the article seems dead in the water since its lockdown, and was met with a resounding silence on all sides, so I'm going to assume the issue is more or less dead and we can get back to editing the article as normal. Ford MF 16:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:50, 23 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.

    In the name of Stephen Colbert, I hereby command you to add the fact that librarians are hiding something! 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    Declined No. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:CRWXTr7 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    The User:WzMG5LJ sockpuppet tag should be added on the talk page because the user was suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:CRWXT, which in turn is a WzMG5LJ sockpuppet. Pants(T) 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (To admins) Also, please add {{pp-usertalk}}. Thanks, Iamunknown 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Riana (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Declined Not prepared to make an extreme change to such an (unfortunately) widely viewed page. Please take it up at WP:VPR, or WP:VPT, or MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext, to gain wider input. Riana (talk) 05:11, 22 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.

    Note: Has there been any discussion on the talkpage about this? Riana (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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-protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Infinite semi-protect or infinite full protection — Doesn't matter which one as long as this contant edit warring ends. See the histories of each page: [2],[3],[4],[5]. All of the ip edits are manipulated by an indef. blocked vandal, User:Recoome. For confirmation that the ips are his, see his list of suspected ips, though I remember there being a lot more ips than that — he has likely blanked most of his ips userpages since. To the administrator, there is no point in blocking the current vandal because Recoome's ip changes about once or twice a day. Lord Sesshomaru

    Creation protected I've salted all the redirects as there is no reason to change them. The main article now has semi protection. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect + expiry of 1 week Whoever is vandalizing keeps getting new IPs, and the vandalism is ridiculous. --DodgerOfZion 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection: Dispute, User keeps adding fair use images, and I and another user revert to another revision that is free use. He keeps reverting to the fair use images, and I want the page protected because this is coming close to breaking out in an all out edit war. there pretty much is a edit war on the page. Karrmann 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 day, Semi-protection, Small edit war between Švitrigaila and 60.43.49.21. (Švitrigaila being in the right.) Jon Ace 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Semi protection should not be used in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - sockpuppeterring in edit war, extended from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Evil Spartan 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected If there is an edit war, unless it is only between anons/new users, the page should be fully protected. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection due to edit war, extended from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. The Evil Spartan 13:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protection with an expiry time of 5 hours. I'm away from Wikipedia for a bit today, and my talk page is being attacked by roving IP vandals adding penis-related vandalism. SunStar Net talk 11:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection, This article was protected on May 31 and unprotected on June 14. Since then, almost every IP inserts inflated record sales without a source. Spellcast 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As I mentioned when protecting Christina Aguilera discography, if there are more up-to-date, reliable sources available, adding them to the article would probably curb such vandalism. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Persistent IP spam, someone coming in with multiple IP addresses to promote their own website. --Elonka 09:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - they'll prolly get bored - Alison ☺ 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection - Persistant IP vandilism, page blanking, removing the infobox and the cited information. Large amount of edits consist of people replacing the sourced infomation with there own personal made information or even fan made ideas. Gran2 08:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - only one or two anon editors (with redlinked talk pages. Hint, hint) - Alison ☺ 10:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection - Over 500 pages are linked to this redirect. --Philip Stevens 08:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by User:Moreschi Alison ☺ 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-Protection - For some reason, is heavily vandalised Corpx 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - oh, that's just too weird! - Alison ☺ 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=140206936"