Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

this header: view • edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Request either semi-protection, full protection, or move protection by placing it in bold text (add ''' before and after a word to make it bold) at the beginning of your statement.

Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently anwsered requests are still listed here.

I have been threatened with being blocked when I continue to remove the onesided and/or slanderous messages from the "other side" in an edit war from my own talk page. Not to mention the repeated messages about new "messages" on said page. I would like this page to protected for a few days, obviously, in this [1] version. -- AlexR 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection (lift from full). Some issues were cleared, and I'd like to show some good faith and allow fixing of the article (while keeping an eye on it). I think the Semi might still be necessary, because the article was targeted by anons of bad faith. Duja 10:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection

Recently, this page is constantly being vandalized by unregistered users in small ways that are sometimes difficult to catch. This is possibly due to the page being mentioned on the air by Howard Stern today. Foday 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request full protection to address the current edit war; there are at least three legitimate uses of "Manitoba" (the Canadian province, a former punk rock performer (R.Manitoba) and a current musician (who now performs under the name Caribou, after threat of legal action by R. Manitoba). Someone (1+ anonomous vandal(s)) keeps removing the third entry after repeated entries by many Wikipedians. The anonomous vandal's IP has been identified as listed with Sirius Radio, the current place of employment of R. Manitoba. Thanks Hu Gadarn 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalism, rather than an edit war, to me. One IP is AOL and the other is shared (though there appears to be only one individual editing through it). Semiprotected for now. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related - I'd like to flag the Caribou (musician) page for a related candidate for full protection. It seems that the vandalism directed towards the Manitoba (disambiguation) page is now directed towards the Caribou (musician) page. 1+ user(s) are claiming that Dan Snaith "stole" the name Manitoba. 1 of these users is registered (Urbanshocker). Thanks Hu Gadarn 07:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough currently. I have it watchlisted and will protect if it gets out of control. This Urbanshocker is an established, though highly inactive editor, and I've noticed that he returned to warring on the Manitoba page--it may need to be full protected or Urbanschocker blocked if this continues. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection

Unregistered users are vandalising the number of total speakers for the languages. --Masatran 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to protect currently. Watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection This is a long simmering political dispute between left-wing and right-wing advocates that has flared up.--Cberlet 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No protection. One day dispute between two editors. Both have been warned for 3RR and will be blocked if they continue edit-warring. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply want to make spelling corrections or add information to a protected page that is not disputed, and you are not involved in any disputes there, consider simply adding {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page.

Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently anwsered requests are still listed here.

It's on the front page. I thought it was standard practice to leave articles on the front page unprotected. Cheers! The Disco King 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been protected for nearly three months. No sign of vandals, I guess it's safe to unprotect it now. Mike Garcia 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. His talk page has been unprotected at your request a few days ago and it has been vandalized about 5 times since then already. --Conti|✉ 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been protected for over a month, and I can't seem to recall what prompted its protection in the first place. There weren't any major arguments going on, I know that for sure. WesleyDodds 10:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate a good reason for an edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.

You may also add {{Editprotected}} to the article's talk page if you would like an inconsequential change of some kind made, but note that most of these should simply wait for unprotection. See also: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

Check here if you cannot find your request. Only recently anwsered requests are still listed here.

Full protection A POV battle that started on other pages including Neofascism and ideology and Neo-fascism has spilled over onto the New Deal Page. Tempers are flaring. A cooling off period would help. I suspect that the other pages may be involved soon. This is a long simmering political dispute between left-wing and right-wing advocates.--Cberlet 02:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No protection currently as the dispute appears to be calming. I have it watchlisted and will protect if it continues. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection on tagged versions of both pages: - Virulent sock puppeteer and POV warrior / personal attack. Banned finally after Arbcom ruling and multiple blocks by post-arbcom mentors. Ran at least 5 confirmed sock puppets, multiple (10+) others believed to be him based on user:David Gerard criteria.

User page and talk page now tagged to mark as sock puppeteer, user believed likely to evade block, would appreciate a lock on those pages to ensure indefinite ban tags by administrator stay visible and aren't removed (now or later) by him without due authorization. I have added tags to clarify, but original tag edit by administrator can be confirmed here.

Relevant links:

• Arbcom ruling and ban/sock list:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans
• Version of user page to be locked (in case its been edited since):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HeadleyDown&oldid=57090943
• Version of user talk page to be locked (in case its been edited since):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HeadleyDown&oldid=57091275

FT2 (Talk) 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see many attempts to remove the tags in a couple of months. Once recently on his talk page, but not on his userpage. I also don't feel that much of a threat is posed by his attempting to remove the tag from his talk page (where it really doesn't belong anyway, but that's beside the point), and I think he should be given a chance to request unblock. I'll watchlist and protect if it gets out of hand, but I don't see that situation currently. You may try contacting the blocking admin and asking if he feels it necessary. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll protect them if they attempt to remove the tag or use the talk pages for protectable offenses. Remember that the checkUser confirmed sock/meatpuppet nature, so they may not be all the same person, but simply related "reqruits". They certainly have caused a lot of trouble and wasted time for myself, the mentors, and arbcom, but thats not a good reason to lock of the talk page as a preventative measure.Voice-of-All^Talk 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. This page is constantly vandalized by people who really seem to believe that the world is ending tomorrow. --Coredesat 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to contant vandalism. Wikipedia will be attacked on June 6 by hackers/scripters, so I think I know who they are.Voice-of-All^Talk 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protection Article was created and has been continuously vandalised. --politakis

Denied. Minor content dispute whereby one editor is attempting to use the article as a vessel for advertising and is opposed by multiple others. Please refraing from adding the {{protected}} template to this article, as it is not protected. Note that you are almost in violation of the three-revert rule and risk being blocked if you continue edit warring on the article--discuss the issue with the editors who oppose you. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection might be in order. Anon IPs repeatedly vandalizing. --Alecmconroy 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enought to protect currently. Wathlist, revert, and warn as you see--I'll be sure to do the same. If the vandalism gets unmanagable I will protect. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD has concluded. Homey 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect also watch for request for protection from a person who recently edit-war in this article. choose carefully if to accept such request in the future. Zeq 06:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected it based on he fact that the AfD has been concluded, and the reason was to protect during that phase against edit warring. However, if edit warring flares up again, it well be reprotected again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which happened this afternoon after a day long edit war. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection please. Over 100 edits and reverts have been made in the past month, with appropiate messages, warnings and blocks being made. This hasn't ceased and I think we need to have a period of calm. Saint-djc 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vsmith 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. Anon IPs have been adding (or restoring) unsourced material and original research despite warnings. Homey 19:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection please. The banned User:Bonaparte won't stop trolling on these pages. On Moldovans, he keeps adding bullshit, and on the talk page he keeps deleting everybody's comments. —Khoikhoi 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he attempted to remove the paragraph above as well. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 2 times now. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a look at it. Back in a second. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And make that 3 times. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And 4 times. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected, anom edit war, probably User:Bonaparte. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idem talk page, should be short. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection - Has experienced questionable expand edits (date), without any new information being added. No further information expected for a couple of months. Personal details are listed at drama wiki, it is linked to from the article. To prevent further edits in the style of "... is a japanese actor from Japan, Tokio." --> "... is a Japanese actor from Japan, Tokio." I have corrected it to "... is a japanese actor from Tokio." Protection until the new movie release later on this year (means to wait additional months after the release date). User:Yy-bo 18:28 4th June 2006 UTC

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All^Talk 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection - I'm currently experimenting with changing the format of the time in my sig to appear something like ^demon's, and as such am using an inclusion method. I'd like to have this semi-protected as I see no reason why anonymous users would ever need to edit it as it isn't encyclopedic content, and I am concerned that it could be attacked. Thanks. --Xyrael ^T 12:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Xyrael ^T 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect. The user who sparked off the edit war on this article by inserting a POV tag on the Music section now considers that he has made his point and is apparently happy for the POV tag to be removed - see User talk:Bazzajf. Rhion 18:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected per User talk:Bazzajf. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect for the following reasons:

1. User:Cyde protected the page, though Wikipedia:Protection policy states, that "admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing" (See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde2)
2. The page has been protected to deal with a regular content dispute, since (re)moval of the cartoons is not a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia (vandalism). Instead, altering the display characteristics of the cartoons would indeed increase the quality of the article, because it would invite editors who feel insulted by the cartoons to add valuable information regarding their side on this controversy.

Raphael1 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denied, this issue has been discussed over an over again, and both the inclusion as well as the way it is includd has been estabished by long and detailed discussions. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you stated for your denial is very questionable for the following reasons:

1. You actually admit, that it's a content dispute and not vandalism.
2. The current display characteristics have been established by poll results conducted merely two weeks after the article has been created in early February, and not through long and detailed discussions.

Raphael1 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a consensus at that page to change the status quo, come back here for unprotection. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy clearly states, that pages should only be protected in response to vandalism. Nowhere does it mention, that pages should be protected to enforce a three month old poll result. Raphael1 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is protected to avoid vandalism. It has semiprotection for that, and as far as I can tell, that leaves all options open to build a consensus to change the three month old poll result and get is changed. There is not need for unprotection for that. So, the request is based on the wrong arguments, as removing the semi protection does not change anything for those. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself. Why have the display characteristics of the cartoons been discussed extensively, if all alternatives to the status quo would constitute vandalism? Raphael1 19:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been unproteced by someone else. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has duly stopped edit warring. Admins have not wheel warred over the protection. Can we please have a go at unprotecting this, so it is not locked in this form indefinitely on all the topics it covers? If more revert wars take place over the T1/T2 issue, any uninvolved admin can restore protection or a further request can be made here. Metamagician3000 09:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unprotectedHomey 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the protection was due to the edits of one particular user. This user has seemed to have left and does not appear to prove much of a problem anymore. The page has been protected for near a month now and it should be opened up. Duhon 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]