Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Knicksfan81 (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 17 April 2007 (→‎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.

    full protection. High level of IP vandalism recently, incluing some libelous content added. I reverted entry back to original state, but please protect in future.Knicksfan81 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Being hit by lots of anon vandals today. Corvus cornix 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not yet. It's today's featured article, so the threshold for protection should be higher. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I didn't realize it was the featured article. OK, never mind.  :) Corvus cornix 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Since the tragedy at VT, this page has been vandalised almost every 30 minutes. This page needs to be protected immediately. - Chulk90 23:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - heavy and persistent racist vandalism - Alison☺ 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Full protection, disupte between regilstered users and now there is an ongoing ArbCom case WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: - Protect log concerns me here. Need another opinion - Alison☺ 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - I don't think there's enough activity to justify protection. Edit warring was many hours ago. Protection has being proposed as an interim remedy as part of the ArbCom case. I suggest we let ArbCom take the lead here. WjBscribe 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Heavy, heavy vandalism rom at least 6 different IP users just today, and many more within the past few days. I've been denied here before, but this is just too much! Not all of it has been reverted yet, so I am now having to take more time to do that. Please semi-protect this. Thanks, Happyme22 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I remember the previous request was declined for NEA. It's just got worse since - Alison☺ 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Constant addition of dodgeball nonsense which now includes nonsense about Wikipedia. Dan D. Ric 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not enough activity. I have issued warnings to the IPs responsible- report to WP:AIV if they persist. May even need to consider a range block. But warnings should be the first step. WjBscribe 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Keeps replacing user talkpage with random stuff, as opposed to the warnings. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'm unhappy protecting the talkpage of a user who isn't presently blocked without their agreement. WjBscribe 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Due to vandalism. Multiple vandalisms nearly on a daily basis are making it difficult to even revert the article. Pgrit154 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Pgrit154 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection Due to revert warring. Anonymous user:192.150.20.11 continues to make threats and continues to revert article to include links to personal blogs. There has been a lot of shouting as they continue to be very extreme, in what should be a short simple article. At least semi-protect so that anonymous IP's cannot have this ability please. Revival42 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)revival42[reply]

    Declined - numerous reasons, including your involvement. Also not enough activity to warrant it. Also, anons are making valid edits - Alison☺ 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protection Due to revert warring and possible sockpuppetry. Leebo T/C 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Semi-protection would be preferrable to stop vandalism. Alientraveller 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by User:Anthony.bradbury. Semi-protected - Alison☺ 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect due to User:Domer48 massive removal of text and use of one-sided extreme POV in this page, including use of inflammatory terms ("West Britons") until it can be reviewed by a non-biased administrator.70.19.39.170 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: - I'm biased on this one as I've edited here before - Alison☺ 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected. Does seem to be a lot of edit warring and serious NPOV issues. Article needs a closer look. WjBscribe 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - above anon editor is a likely sock of a banned editor - Alison☺ 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - this article has been getting vandalized by nonregistered IPs. Given the subject of the article, the size of the article, the number of hits im guessing it receives daily, and the number of articles that link to it, would it be ok to protect it? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - it's not the worst & I note another admin is active over there. Article should be okay - Alison☺ 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Excessive vandalism and blanking from various users on a daily basis. Anthony Rupert 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - some anon editors are making good edits over there. It would not be good to exclude them right now - Alison☺ 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection - article is receiving persistent vandalism. Part Deux 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection The article is constantly being blanked paged by an anonymous user and needs semi-protection.Susanbryce 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. – Steel 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. If at all possible, please do not put a timer on it (like last time); let an administrator undo it manually. Part Deux 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. High traffic, high levels of vandalism. Stubbleboy 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Level of simple vandalism is low and there are tonnes of eyes on it. – Steel 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection - article is receiving daily vandalism.--Play Brian Moore 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 18:49, 17 April 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.

    Talk:Alpha Kappa Alpha (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Has been protected since February 7, and it prevents new/anonymous users from suggesting improvements. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - two months is long enough - Alison☺ 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently a protected redirect. Detailed rationale for unprotection on talk page. Greenshed 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - seems reasonable & consensus appears to have been reached - Alison☺ 22:38, 17 April 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.

    Article faced a semi edit war yesterday and got protected, in order to calm things down I didn't revert and added the dispute tag and waited until the other user cooperates to make it NPOV. Sadly he has decided to go on holiday. Currently it has controversial info. I believe it can be fixed up and developed using more sources. Cheers, --Rayis 10:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - protected too recently. Best off proposing your compromise changes on the talk page and give the other editor a chance to reply. - Alison☺ 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Page contains baseless allegations about the organisation and is protected so that no one can remove those blatant lies. Some users like Swadhyayee,etc. have hijacked the page and do not allow even to post the fact supportd by link to the national news paper Indian Express that Mr. Bharat Bhatt has been relived on bail by Gujarat High Court citing "Prima Facie" he does not appear to be involved in the murder case. The present protected page is not at all reflective of NPOV. The best thing is to have the page with facts and philosphy and practice of the organsiation and have a seprate page for controversies. To do this, it requires a major edit before all the bias is removed and it is protected again. --[[User: Hemendra|Hemendra]] 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    Unprotected - unprotected the talk page so anon editors can add requests. Semi'd since December. See how it goes - Alison☺ 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I simply want to put in that the movie recieved a PG-13 rating yesterday. I also can't request this on the article's talk page because the talk is also protected. --98E 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - unprotected the talk page so anon editors can add requests. Semi'd since December. See how it goes - Alison☺ 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Add tag [Category:Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe (television)] to the categories. Svsvtkag 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fix spelling to the beginning of Comedy in Stardom section. Claudette was not enthused → Claudette did not enthuse Svsvtkag 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Add "Oscars" co-host to the succession box of Fimography section. 29th Academy Awards: (Succeeded by) Celeste Holm Svsvtkag 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Michaelas10 18:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that in the article there is no mention of the chains that were on the doors on at least two doors at Norris Hall. I believe that this is of great signifigance, for the gunman may have had to go elsewhere to get these chains and locks. If this was so, perhaps the Norris Hall shootings weren't apart of the original plan. It also rules in the possibility of a second gunman, or at least supports it more. Romulan248 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined probably best to bring it up on the talk page if there are concerns - Alison☺ 05:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect - this article has been getting vandalized by nonregistered IPs. Given the subject of the article, the size of the article, the number of hits im guessing it receives daily, and the number of articles that link to it, would it be ok to protect it? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Tag war. Request protection. >Radiant< 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected due to revert warring. WinHunter (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection +expiry 2 days, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Protection is requested for a certain period because, like the Virginia Tech article, it is related to the Virginia Tech massacre AEMoreira042281 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Level of vandalism isn't that high, looks to be some good edits coming through. People have been complaining about the various Virginia Tech pages being protected, so I'd rather keep this one open. – Steel 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High IP vandalism, all edits in the last X days are vandalism mostly by IPs (+reverts, of course). Mormegil 07:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection This article is routinely subject to vandalism by new users and IP users. This has been going on for some time now. Due to this frequent vandalism and due to the strong opinions some people have about the subject of this biographical article, I think semi-protection for the forseeable would be appropriate. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Long and steady reverting by user 66... coupled w/refusal to engage in discussion or respect 3rd opinions or accept any part of prior edits. As to denial by ALison b/c " edit war & anon user is giving detailed rationale on the talk page (as yet unanswered) - I am the anon user and it is 66 who is reverting STILL and who hasn't replied on the talk (as anon, my # changes) 4.231.242.90 06:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected – Steel 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect High IP vandalism; nearly all edits of last 100 (3 days) vandalism. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 05:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect as vandalism by anons has increased in recent days. --Paul Erik 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for 2 days. I request 2 day semi-protect to slow down the number of vandals. The Random Editor 21:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - it's just been recently unprotected after an extended prot. Little vandalism today. Give it a bit of time ... - Alison☺ 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But then Centrx protected it. What's going on? - Ctbolt 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to ask Centrx that - Alison☺ 05:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotect. Sprotected to pre-empt vandalism, which isn't policy -Halo 18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment according to this section a few sections up, it was protected due to heavy vandalism, not the potential for heavy vandalism. In other words, the vandalism was happening and it wasn't a protection to prevent the possibility for vandalism. Metros232 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was editing the article - there was 1 lot of vandalism for around 15-20 genuine edits. Therefore it was either done incorrectly, or it was designed to pre-empt vandalism (since "it's a new article"). Check the edit history -Halo 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined The talkpage has now had to be semi-protected to avoid people posting names and personal details of alleged shooters. Unprotecting the article would leave it open to the same problem. WjBscribe 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotect. Talk:Virginia_Tech_shootings. Now no one who is unregistered is permitted to discuss the topic. This seems to be violative of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Rooot 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotect I strongly agree with Rooot. This quick-trigger to protect articles and the talk space when they are most in demand is getting out of control. Tfine80 04:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined per above. – Steel 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined thirded, per above. Poss. libel issues - Alison☺ 05:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Vandalism.Invisible Noise 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Alison☺ 05:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    unprotect.

    Extreme bias is (unexpectedly) present here, the registered community will obviously have a bias towards Wikipedia, unprotection is the only way to prevent this. LaudanumCoda 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - see [1]. It's been repeatedly tried but never works - Alison☺ 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that I am the reason of having protected this entry. In the section Incidents, I added an incident that could have taken more than 138 lifes. I also put, as a proof, a picture taken by one of the passengers. I was one of those, so as I proof there was also my testimony. During take off, April 5, 2007, in flight 265 from MEX (Mexico City Airport), pilot made a blunder maneuver and drove the plane to a mud, instead of taking off from 05R runway. Left turbine was close to crash to a concrete block (may be it touched lightly), and if this were happened, me and my fiance were have died, because we were at seat 6-B and 6-C, just aside of the left turbine. THIS FACT IS AN INCIDENT, IT HAS TWO PROOFS (My testimony and a picture), but it affects Copa Airlines image (they just cancel the flight, with no explanation, no compensation, and reasigned us in different flights to our destinations). So, some one deleted why I wrote and it does not even appear as a history of the entry. If this entry remains protected, at least I want the history of this edition COMPLETE, with the picture. And anyone will take his/her decision of flying with Copa. Thanks Robertoremes 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - it's only been protected a few days ago due to sock-puppetry by User:Cpzphantom. - Alison☺ 04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect, could you protect this for a couple of days so they get bored of vandalising again? Vandalism seems to be coming from the school and comes in waves. thanks - Ctbolt 01:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected--Húsönd 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    temporarily. More than one user has vandalised this biography of England's most senior doctor. 209.139.228.161 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. User:Dobbie19x + User:Dr Mustard.--Húsönd 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=123670878"