Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scharks (talk | contribs) at 11:19, 28 April 2007 (→‎Current requests for protection: added yeast). 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.


    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism and nonsense edits. ◄scharks► 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 11:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 month, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Lots of attention given by new users... Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 11:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. This is an article that was deleted and converted to a redirect after an AfD a few months ago. Anons have recently been trying to restore the deleted content there. WarpstarRider 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - the four previous deletes and two AfDs says it all - Alison ☺ 11:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect please, this article is the target of repeated negative "Anti-Roma" edits by IP based users, I'm watching it personally but I'd rather not have to police it 24/7 MPJ-DK 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. 24.52.101.26 has been warned. Michaelas10 09:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. A recent major overhaul of the Neopets website has resulted in many annonymous IPs vandalizing the page to "protest" the change. Bhamv 08:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 2 months. It had previously been protected for shorter periods, but due to the nature of this re-design, a wave of vandalism came when each time ended. Michaelas10 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 20 days, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Seems to be targetted due to the upcoming release of their new album. Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Alison ☺ 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Simple vandalism by ips Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 05:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. An editor has repeatedly removed information from the article. I believe that this is the same editor performing this action repeatedly, although there may be more than one person doing this. Example Ibaranoff24 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Phaedriel - 05:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. See above. The same IP addresses that have vandalized the above article have also removed the same information from this article - concerning London's belief that the film Dirty Duck was plagiarized from his work. Example Ibaranoff24 05:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not enough activity to just protection- only one vandal edit. Policy does not allow for pre-emptive protection of articles. WjBscribe 05:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Huge amount of vandalism and unverifiable info by new users and ip addresses. Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 05:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. IP vandals seem to like this page. God knows why. nadav 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protect This page has failed consensus. Various attempts have been made to prevent this from showing, though the discussion has moved elsewhere. Even showing it as "rejected" and leaving a pointer to the new spot has been reverted. Mangoe 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Phaedriel - 05:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection - Now three editors have each had to make continual rv's of the same uncited, non-notable, vanity addition that an anon-IP son keeps wants to make to honor his father, who has no Google hits. This same person does it under two different IPs. 148.129.74.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.174.182.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He's also being abusive and using insulting language on the talk page, under header "==Francis C. Brown==". Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FOUR editors have now reverted this obsessive vandal: User:RossPatterson, User:JRWalko, User:Simon12, and myself. Is there anything else we can do to validate the need for this page to be protected? --Tenebrae 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Dear Tenebrae, next time, please be patient - sometimes, there's none of us around for a short while ;) - Phaedriel - 05:52, 28 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.

    Anonymous IP editors were recently making libelous edits to this article following a local political controversy. Malicious material has since been removed and I've put a note on various noticeboards encouraging people to watchlist it for vandalism, so I think full protection at this point is unwarranted. My request is to have it unprotected and if problems begin again, to semi-protect since new accounts/IPs were the ones being nasty. The BLP discussion can be found here. bobanny 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by User:Doc glasgow Alison ☺ 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm...this is a request to unprotect. bobanny 07:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined - sorry - I wasn't clearer about that. I suggest you run this by User:Doc glasgow as it's only been protected hours ago and there are BLP issues. I note that one of the IP addresses in question claims to be the article's subject - Alison ☺ 07:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You were pretty clear the first time, and it's pretty clear you're not interested in considering the reasons I gave for unprotection. Or maybe it became "the encyclopedia administrators can edit" when I wasn't looking. bobanny 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the BLP discussion and that was my opinion on the matter. It's not that I'm not interested in your rationale, it's just that I'm uneasy unprotecting it so quickly after it's been protected over a very serious matter. I'd rather Doc weighed in on it, or at least another admin. Note that nobody has edited it since Doc prot'd it. To do so would be an abuse of the sysop bit. - Alison ☺ 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: - second opinion from another admin, please - Alison ☺ 08:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't see any justification for this full-protection. The continued existence of this... thing is a matter of debate (it appears to blatantly trangress WP:SELF, is redundant with {{Reqphoto}} among other templates, and has no consensus at all, yet is being deployed on hundreds of articles so far), but I don't see any evidence of a huge us vs. them partisan editwar going on over there. There's really not much on the page to even editwar about. More a matter for WP:RFC and/or WP:MFD. It also needs {{Essay}} on it immediately, as it is already provably being mistaken for official policy: [1] — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Worse yet, I looked in the history and saw that it was protected by its author; that smacks of highly questionable use of admin powers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Why the self-revert of the unprotect just now? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done as a requested edit to add {{Mfd}} rather than unprotection. WjBscribe 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This Article is biased and the author’s are pro-Hindutva with lot of OR. This article should be allowed to edit so that the atrocities of Hindutva militant group such as RSS and Bajrang Dal can be included. The supporter of this ideology are causing greatest damage to Indian Christians and all other minorities. This is for 3rd time submitted my request to unprotect and somehow my request is getting vanished. John Paul 05:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • While this is obviously a terrible reason to unprotect, the article has been protected for a few weeks, and there's no discussion ongoing. Maybe an unprotect is justified anyway? -Amarkov moo! 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I agree it has been a while, but the attitude of the account requesting the unprotection does not suggest they're about to begin collegial editing. I'd rather they spent some time discussing the issues on the talkpage than just assume that if they wait long enough the page will be unprotected. WjBscribe 05:59, 28 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.

    The recent edit war was begun due to questions about whether or not Scientology actually published or referenced a forged Naval service document when describing L. Ron Hubbard's career in the US Navy. I have found references that current Scientology webpages are still using the document. I don't know if the block should be lifted yet, so instead I'm asking that the references be added by an uninvolved sysop. To make this as easy as possible for anyone who wishes to help, here is a link to what I want to change: L. Ron Hubbard#After the war. And this is what I'd like replaced: [citation needed] tag with <ref>Description of Hubbard's service/awards from news.scientology.org as a rebuttal to a Boston Herald article: [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page10fb.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11a.htm]</ref> minus the nowiki tags of course. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined That citation does not directly support the claim He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation" as the claim is being presented by the author, nor Hubbard, and as it is primarily an attack on Joseph Mallia, including that reference would not be conducive to maintaining a neutral POV on the article. —dgiestc 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may have missed what Joseph Mallia was writing about. He was writing about the truth of Hubbard's claims to have been a "war hero", and the site referenced is refuting the claims made by Mallia. In doing this they refer to a fake document indicating Hubbard won 21 awards including a Purple Heart with "palm".

    The real form in question was made public after a FOIA request and is very different than the one referenced by the CoS site. Since the links show clearly what the CoS claims, the two accounts should both be discussed for the sake of NPOV. Anynobody 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"

    Also the above statement was not Mallia's statement it was whichever editor here that wrote it:

    1. Malia writes article
    2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards [2]
    3. Real naval record comes out: [3]
    4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: [4].

    You seem to think it was Malia who said Hubbard won 21 awards, it's the other way around. Anynobody 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-read my response. My reading comprehension is fine. If you want to make this change, propose it on the talk page, gain the consensus of other editors, and then make a new request here. —dgiestc 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of clarity, at this point I'm not saying you have to make the change. However your response does not acknowledge any of the other sources cited above by me or those already referenced in the article itself. The links I added here, that you say is an attack on Malia, are claims made by Hubbard's biographer that he earned 21 medals according to this document: [5]. Since the biographer/CoS are citing the above document, it represents what they maintain Hubbard's war record was. Now that the Navy version has come out, and it's different, both versions should be on the article for readers to judge for themselves. Again you don't have to make the change, but please explain your original answer because saying it would be POV and doesn't support the contention seems to indicate either you or I may not understand all the relevant information. Anynobody 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the place to request it, but... I'm looking for an extremely specific edit: One of the headers reads: "Shadow Shuriken Imitation Technique." It was actually changed to that from "Shuriken Shadow Imitation Technique" here, immediately before the dispute took place, and nobody caught it until after the full-protect. Several pages link directly to that header, so having the wrong header for an entire week will mess that up. A desire for this edit is expressed at the bottom of Talk:List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Summoning: Impure World Resurrection, though nobody has really brought up requesting a protected-page edit. You Can't See Me! 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this article was fully-protected only yesterday. It's important to discuss/notify other editors of your requested changes. Can you request this on the article's talk page with {{Editprotected}}, please? - Alison☺ 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the correction of the following typographical errors:

    invstigate => investigate

    soly => solely

    Thanks. John254 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- zzuuzz(talk) 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Request an edit as per the section "Bias" on the articles talk page. The dispute that required the protection should be largely resolved by the edit proposed as it has been agreed to by one of the disputing parties (and by one other editor on my own talk page) and not replied to by the opposing party (nor opposed by any other editor) since the compromise was suggested on 15 April.
    2. The article page has a semi protected tag but is actually fully protected. This should be corrected by either making the page semi protected or changing the tag. Cheers Wayne 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - Phaedriel - 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    User talk:67.174.128.249 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect for the duration of the block please, he keeps erasing the talk page. Thanks very much :) Lolly (chat) 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Phaedriel - 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection My user page has been vandalized numerous times today. There is a post on www.sternfannetwork.com telling people to vandalize my page because I nominated some Howard Stern-related pages for deletion. 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Semi-protected -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, The article has been receiving unsourced POV claims several times related to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy, and there aren't enough people to watch it Defender of independence 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 00:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect Heavy annon vandals. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 00:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, hardly. – Steel 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Edit war, people keep removing content without using discussion page. Matt Brennen 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. – Steel 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, is vandalized very often Lemonflash 22:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. – Steel 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. School article being repeatedly vandalised by multiple IPs (one from a school computer, and IPEDU tag added; some others from IPs in the area) over a period of days. Bencherlite 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. – Steel 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This template is not widely used and is only used on image description pages. Because it is not a particularly high-risk template, it does not need full protection. Furthermore, it is need of updating, and I would go about that if I could. --Iamunknown 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. – Steel 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. Article about a hall of residence at an UK university. Unreferenced. Has been SP'ed before. Not on enough watchlists to prevent anons making merry. Suggest SP until this year's cohort leaves at term-end on Friday, 15 June 2007. Mr Stephen 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. – Steel 22:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. ROASTYTOAST 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. – Steel 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Frequent IP vandalism from multiple IPs and new users since the page was created. -Panser Born- (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. – Steel 21:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Constant IP vandalism to this article the last 7 days, after the previous 1 month semi-protection expired. The last 100+ edits are all vandalism and rvv. Semi-protection is again clearly required to put a stop to this. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. – Steel 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Multiple IP vandalism. User consistently keeps putting unsupported speculation into the article --MistaTee 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This template is not widely used and is only used on image description pages. Because it is not a particularly high-risk template, it does not need full protection. Furthermore, it is need of updating, and I would go about that if I could. --Iamunknown 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. – Steel 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I have another. :-) --Iamunknown 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish to nominate this article for AfD, and it is now fully protected, which means I can't place the AfD banner. Can you please reduce the article protection to semi-protection? There seems to be current consensus at Talk:MDS International that having an AfD debate is reasonable. This page has been the target of defamatory statements and some of the participants have issued legal threats. During the AfD I will ask the participants to put the article on their watch list so they can revert any defamation. See the Talk entry at Talk:MDS_International#Can_we_nominate_this_article_for_deletion.3F for pointers to related discussions at WP:AN/I and WP:COIN. I have made my proposal for an AfD discussion at both noticeboards [6] and [7] and there has been no disagreement so far. EdJohnston 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected. – Steel 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=126606543"