Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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 2025

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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. Large amounts of anon vandalism.Exarion 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.Large amount of vandalism by unregistered user .-- Nana 17:48 ,7 January 2007 (UTC)

semi-protect. Much effort is going into this page to correct POV, copywriting and world-view issues. An anonymous user reverted all the changes to re-add an a list that he/she had added before but had been removed by another user as either spam or a violation of no-original research rules.--P Todd 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. Large amount of anonymous vandalism. RJASE1 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. High levels of IP vandalism since she joined Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK). Gasheadsteve 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit war is ongoing, and perhaps it should be stopped for a while with a discussion on the talk page instead... I don't know the subject, so I cannot really tell if it's different opinions, vandalism, or what. --Raistlin 11:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

Article has been protected since 26 December 2006 due to edit-warring. Request unprotect in order to add pov tag re:talk page. Curtains99 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi protection because the antivandal bot has had to revert edits atleast twcie and users have done so atleast twice. There are multiple IP addresses guilty of this. --dputig07 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected —Centrx→talk • 04:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where's the protection?

It's there. It's not automatic with the responce, there's a separate mechanism to do. Nice to see some other people helping out here too. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{sprotect}} in response. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. This article frequently gets (mild?) vandalism. I've reverted stuff twice in the last few hours. (I'm new at requesting protection. Please don't hurt me. :) ) --Matt Nordhoff (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Just probably some drive-by vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection, this is a redirect and except for its creation, every edit has been vandalism or reverting of such. This redirect is unlikely to ever need modification. Grika Ⓣ 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 03:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect. IP sockpuppet of indef banned user Uifan (talk · contribs) continues to remove information from this article after it was unprotected a couple days ago. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[1] by Physicq210. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting semi-protection due to (a) anonymous vandalism and (b) persistent disruption by an anonymous editor. --ElKevbo 20:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much vandalism as one IP annon adding links against consensus (from what I read). Advice the IP about following consensus (on their talk page). Not protected for now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me. He was here yesterday doing the exact same thing, with a slightly different IP. An admin had to block him for 24 hours (IP: 66.99.3.118). I've had probably over 20 discussions with him about Wikipedia policies and our consensus. He ignores me, the rest of the editors, and the administrators. ~ UBeR 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with UBer - this really is a case of a particularly pernicious anonymous editor who has consistently ignored consensus and other editors. If he or she were pinned down to a single IP address I'd be asking for it to be blocked. But that's not the case and I hope that semi-protection might be sufficient. --ElKevbo 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join my voice to request semi-protection of the article, the user is being persistently disruptive. (it is definitely the same user, he contacted me again on my talk page). Either sprotect or ipblock are good. Sfacets 21:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected after reconsederation and several admins and users imput. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting semi-protection, repeated IP vandalism. The perperatrator (216.220.208.238, as of late, but also 209.204.84.2) repeatedly vandals certain pages, sopranist being one of them. Sometimes his addition of vandalism overrides parts of the article. It is becoming tiring to every couple of weeks reverting vandalism, checking out if s/he deleted any information. Thank you. John Holly 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. I have warned the IP for the edit also. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting restoration of temporary full-protection per Wikipedia:Protection_policy to cool down an edit war. Temporary full protection was recently dropped, sadly the edit war continues. For example, external links which are biased, not encyclopedic resources or mainstream, reputable media, and so violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability; see in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_the_author.28s.29 These links were deleted by a Wikipedia editor but were restored as soon as protection was dropped. Please note this is a Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and so requires strict enforement. Sorry about this. Thanks. Hugh 18:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. I just unprotected this yesterday, no need to re-protect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting semi-protection per Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy#User.2Fuser_talk_pages. Thanks. John254 17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected savid@n 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. An utterly insane amount of IP vandalism, bringing back all the terrible formatting/linking/grammar errors and false/unverified information from a past version of the page. --Benten 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. savid@n 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection. May be enough to discourage Jatinram, who repeatedly restores his preferred text using anonIPs 220.117.97.99 and 202.141.41.27. Jatinram is an extreme Rajesh Khanna fan (Rajesh Khanna being a Bollywood actor popular in the 1970s), and fills the article with fangush, personal opinion, and unreferenced statements. He is convinced that there is a government conspiracy to promote Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan and sideline Rajesh Khanna. Jatinram has also attacked the Amitabh article. I'd like to see if semi-protection would be enough to discourage him, as draggint this through an Arbcom proceeding, to get him banned, would be a tedious and wretched exercise. Zora 09:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One IP, I've warned him for not sticking to NPOV. Hopefully he'll stop, or if he continues a block is favourable to sprotection. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection. Protect against recreation. Page was recreated after being speedy deleted. There was a problem with SD template deletion. This gives reason to believe further problems will arise. John Reaves 08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected and SALTed temporarily. I'll re-delete it in a week, that should be enough time. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term semi-protect. Persistent IP vandalism. This page has been semi-protected at least a couple times due to the frequency of IP vandalism on it, and each time it's unprotected frequent vandalism returns anew. S-protecting for a few weeks seems to do nothing to deter vandalism. --Jackhorkheimer 08:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Chrisch 06:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect Vandalism and edit-warring by anonymous editors and user accounts that were specifically created to edit on the article. I suspect there may be sockpuppetry going on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected savid@n 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating request for unsprotection from 2-3 days ago. New Year's is definitely over now, so I don't think they'll be any problems. No longer a need for sprotection. Trebor 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. I think I was the one who said wait another day or two too. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention on the talk page why this article is protected. Per edit history, it appears the reason for protection is edit warring by a new user over 24 hours ago. Suggest s-protection if warring from new user persists and a note on the talk page. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2007 (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. And from what I can see, it was a three person edit war. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]