Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

"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.

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 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

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.

Raúl Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection:Tried to have this semi-protected earlier but it was denied, activity has continued unabated with increased incivility despite the blocking of one of the addresses. Anon with roving IP address is continually reverting a number of users and admins and adding unencyclopedic content now saying "I will make it a point of changing the article to what I believe is the truth, 1000 times if I have to. You offer no alternatives." It's a living biography by the way.--Zleitzen 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this one.Voice-of-All 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: The Nicknames section is constantly being vandalized by anonymous users. --Lc 04 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fabien Barthez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: The vandalism rate on the French goalkeeper's article is starting to pick up. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection: Jeff_Relf (talk · contribs) has been continually adding his own original research to the "Scientific Philosophy" section of the article - discussions on the article and his edits are on the Discuss page. The user will not budge from his own incorrect view of modern physics and has now moved onto editing the Classical Physics page to try and further his own agenda. Desdinova 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user per 3RR.Voice-of-All 09:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerome Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection: Anonymous user has been waging a slow revert war. Several attempts[1][2][3][4] to get him to participate in a discussion on Talk:Jerome Armstrong have been met with stony silence. Same person has also twice vandalised user pages of people he disagrees with[5][6], indicating that he has no interest in consensus-building. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 20:23, July 8, 2006

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

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.

Mail-order bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like the edit war has settled down. One participant appears to have left after an RFC. Others seem ready to move forward. William Pietri 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection should be sufficient. ALthough heated at times, much of the debate happens on talk, and there seems to be only one named user who continuously tries to ignore the consensus. The rest are IP edits. -- Avi 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected by PinchasC. Voice-of-All 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

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.

Fullfilled/denied requests

J._Philippe_Rushton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page was protected some time ago because of an edit war. Editors agree there are no problems now.--Nectar 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The issues that started the revert war have not yet been resolved. Voice-of-All 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page isn't grounds for keeping an article protected. Neither of the 2 editors who engaged in that edit war are active now on the talk page or the draft of the article we set up so that we don't have to wait for the article to be unprotected. This is interfering with level-headed editors trying to do their job. --Nectar 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Its still too soon to assume that they just left, and you can still make protected edit requests.Voice-of-All 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Since you're not an editor of the article, listen to those who are: these editors aren't children that need you to hold their hand in order to edit articles. If you want to wait until every debate is resolved on the talk page you're going to have to wait months. What is important is that there are no heated debates any more on either the talk page or the draft that has been set up. This policy is not intended to unilaterally go against the wishes of reasonable editors.--Nectar 22:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been protected for 3 weeks now.--Nectar 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Horacio Elizondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears the anger over Elizondo giving Rooney the red card has died down and vandalism would be considerably lower than it was before. Englishrose 22:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Evgeni Plushenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: User:Roitr/sockpuppeter is banging on this one again. Dr.frog 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this one.Voice-of-All 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Marco Materazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Very frequent vandalism and reverts (once per minute!). Materazzi was footballer headbutted by Zidane (see below). -- MightyWarrior 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --Golbez 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears the anger over Rooney's red card has died down and vandalism would be considerably lower than it was before. Yanksox 19:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Zinedine Zidane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection Currently semi-protected but is still subject to vandlism/revert conflict. Really needs full protection until tempers settle down (for non football fans Zidane was sent off in the World Cup final). --Daduzi ^talk 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a huge number of reversions, or at least, edits labelled as such. We usually like to let folks edit the hell out of newsworthy articles. --Golbez 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty much the entire first page of the history is vandalism and reversions. I was about to suggest this article here, but realized there was already a request. Is there anyway you'd reconsider? tmopkisn ^tlka

Super Mario Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Some idiots keep vandalizing the article to make such claims as "The villain wins!", or "Peach desides (sic) to leave Mario [tied up]", or "Mario lands with a fractured arm," neither of which actually happen in the comic.--Nintendo Maximus 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• In the future, do NOT add the sprotected template to articles. It accomplishes nothing. Nor does edit warring over it. That said, I'm doing it. --Golbez 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Digital Spy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection: It is fully protected at the moment and i am/others are unable to edit due to this. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Voice-of-All 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if someone else edits it, then i am not editing it am i and thus it wont be in my Contribs? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindutva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issues that led to this page being protected have been resolved. I no doubt anticipate that the current compromise will be endangerered at some point in the future, but as of now there seems to be agreement on both sides of the discussion. Infact that agreement was basically reached before the protection was even added. --Krsont 10:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. I can't seem to find where User:Netaji or User:Bharatveer have agreed on this. Voice-of-All 12:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Raúl Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection:Anon with roving IP address insisting many times on a sentence claiming that "it is rumored Castro is bisexual" citing a dubious and unacceptable blog source. A number of users have reverted, I have left a message on the talk page to no avail and the activity continues. As the IP address is roving it's impossible to address the user directly. Best to semi protect, as it's also a living biography.--Zleitzen 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:User male (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi protection: Recent massive trolling by an AOL IP changing the meaning of the template from the user being male to implying that the user is a homosexual. No shows of good faith from the AOL IP, as it was blocked for the required 15 minutes, then repeated the vandalism. The editor is claiming to conform it to "NPOV", making it similar to other userboxes that imply that the user is interested in the subject. Ryulong 09:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Voice-of-All 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:White (people) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:White (people)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This talk page was semiprotected along with the main article by Crzrussian (talk · contribs) on the 26th. The article got unprotected on the 30th, but the talk page seems to have been forgotten. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 09:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Halo (video game series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection: Currently undergoing massive vandalism/edit warring by various anonymous users. --Hetar 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs.com is currently having a "Best Series Ever" poll, and Halo was just knocked out of the running tonight, which is the cause of the edit war. There's also at least one topic promoting the war on the message boards, so it's going to be pretty bad for a little while. Koweja 05:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism.

Note: 15.961 marked revert(s) per day (since last active) is high. But the above user's comment is on the mark; there is also a 1 : 0.22 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV). So many edits are still getting threw. These stats are for the last 50 edits.Voice-of-All 09:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Billy Joel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ridiculous that this page has been protected for nearly two weeks over some petty dispute over a fan site, please unprotect. Arniep 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 09:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please unprotect because many good conversations are going on in the talk and any vandalism or warring is always quickly taken care of by serious editors. If this page is protected it can't be improved. Please unprotect. Thanks. Scifiintel 02:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Voice-of-All 09:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Un-protected. Only because Duarte Pio supporters want no insert in this page a truth thata is the last monarchic contitution excluded to succession the miguelist branch of Duarte Pio, so they protected this page. This is not democratic and correct. User:Manuel 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotect: Protected since June 5. There was no edit war in the first place. The nature of the article is that it will be edited constantly. Everyone is agreed on this. There was no uncivility in the edits. There is also a consensus to move to a revised version I have developed so that people with POV for all three major sides have a section or sections present their findings. See the talk page. No work is being made by the one who requested protection to find a way to unprotect the article. No reason is given for the protection in the first place. If there is a reason, then whatever the reason, I am sure it has been resolved - as there has been no activity on the article for quite some time now. A month of protection without reason is censorship in my opinion. No work is being done on the article at all, and the larger community of editors of both Messianics ands non Messianics have given up contributing, and have given up pushing to get the page unprotected as a result. Multiple requests to unprotect the page have been deleted. Please send someone neutral to the discussion to make a decision on how best this article should move forward. inigmatus 20:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected. I can't find any series revert war, just a few reverts with productive edit summaries. Voice-of-All 09:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Babri Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection: Edit war and large blankings of sections and references by Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) and anonymous users [7] [8] [9] [10]. --Msiev 12:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 08:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)