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.

Mortal Kombat: Devastation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting Semi-protection. Anonymous users are constantly editing the article, adding false or unproved information, with no sources what so ever to back them up. Vandals constantly edit the page adding nonsense, such as statements not to believe the information on the page, although with the amount of false information going in and out of the page every day, it's hardly surprising. All of the edit's I have seen so far that have either been false, unsourced, POV, or poorly written in a 'non-encyclopedic' fashion are all by anonymous users, and Semi-protection would help greatly in the matter. Thankyou - The Haunted Angel 13:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Requesting Semi-protection. Anonymous vandals continually make short work of this page. If you look at the history, you'll see that almost every day there are random IP address edits, all of which have to be quickly reverted. Please consider this page for semi-protection. Thanks! Chuchunezumi 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

An anonymous troll left insulting messages on my talk page thrice, and I reverted thrice.[1][2][3] Cowman109 blocked the IP [4] but the troll came back with a different IP.[5] Cowman109 reverted [6] and then semi-protected my talk page.[7] However, the semi-protection was lifted by the same user after only one day.[8] In anticipation of copious hate mail, I think a day of semi-protection is too short, and I request that the semi-protection be reinstated to ensure there won't be a repeat incident (after the copious hate mail I will get dies down). I think the optimal length of semi-protection should be a week, or longer if problems (and copious hate mail) continue. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Only because you edited my page without my permission and in a threatening way [9] and proceeded to insult and vandalize under your IP address. [10] [11] --172.190.70.90 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is specifically not to be used "as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred." Your page was unprotected as the threat of harassment by the user in question had passed; I spoke with the user and he apologised for his actions and hurtful edit summaries, and has since agreed to stop. I will have another administrator accept or decline this request, though. Cowman109^Talk 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If edits continue such that semi-protection seems the best path, we will happily re-protect. However, at the moment, it seems the threat has passed, and that the current state of protection seems fine. If you have any more problems, let us know. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:50, 14 August 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.

Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mediation is ongoing at the talk page, and we have agreed a change we'd like to make. I'd like to unprotect and give the mediation a chance to succeed. Mike Christie 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Unprotected -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 14 August 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.

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

I would like to see the current version replaced with this version found at [12]. It is nearly identical to the protected version, except for the fact that the broken links and citations have been repaired. -- 72.139.185.19 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Performed history merge. —Mets501 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fullfilled/denied requests

High school musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - This article is continuously vandalised by anonymous editors. They will either fill the article with POV statements about the characters or add nonsense information to the article that doesn't belong there anyway. I have seen on more than one occasion this nonsense being left in the article and not reverted. Again, a significant portion of these edits have been done anonymously. --Klaser 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Mets501 (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Jones Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been protected for over a month. However, the controversy involving Reynolds being fired from The View seems to have died down, as can be seen by the fact that there have been only 8 edits to the article's talk page in the last two weeks. The article can either be dropped to semi-protection or unprotected entirely. I note that an editor seems to have removed the {{protected}} template from the article but the article still appears to be protected. --Metropolitan90 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. It seems Chihuaha forgot to actually unprotect the article, heh. Cowman109^Talk 06:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full Protection Hello, A user who has been asked to converse continues to remove an optional field from a template. This is extremley dispruptive when it causes damage to pages it is used on (hundreds). Semi-Protection will not suffice as he is a sysop and has been editing for some time. This has already been put through before and rejected by annother user, his last revert was 7 hours ago but i expect he will revert again in the afternoon. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 08:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Voice-of-All 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection - The article has been repeatedly vandalised over the last few months by a great many IPs, possibly coming from a single person, judging by their modus operandi. Their usual tactic is to delete a section of the article and replace it with some spam links. Over time some harmful edits did not get reverted, resulting in an article about ninety percent shorter than it originally was until I restored it recently, piece by piece. Almost immediately after the restoration, the actions continued and there have already been three vandal activities in less than a day, all in the same old manner. Denis Kasak 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected now. —Mets501 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hans Henning Atrott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IPs constantly try to insert personal attacks on other wikipedians (both in the article proper and on the talk page). Over the last weeks, though not constantly, I tried to remember different IPs to make their point in an NPOV manner (that is, to refrain from attacks on Germans and Christians in general) - to no avail. Gugganij 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected. Cowman109^Talk 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Power Rangers: Mystic Force (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should not be protected. The person who has requested for this page to be protected lacks the complete knowledge of this season of Power Rangers to actually recognize what is and isn't an reliable source when it comes to Power Rangers Mystic Force. This person has demonstrated this lack of knowledge in the main talk page of Power Rangers and on one other Power Rangers web forum.RangerKing 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to decline again, as there is clearly still a potential for an edit war, however I will wait for another administrator's opinion. Nonetheless, I feel it's necessary for you to to some sort of consensus on the talk page first. Cowman109^Talk 18:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television episode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection Ongoing severe edit dispute between two users. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 20:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The two of them seem to have stopped, so temporarily declined, but I will watch the page and protect it should the war continue. Cowman109^Talk 20:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Shakim67 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection for the duration on whatever blocks may be on this user and to end the drama that continues to occur here between two users. It may also be useful to do the same protections on User talk:Can't Nobody Step To Me (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:CertifiedGangsta (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) as they are sockpuppets accounts proven through the first Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shakim67. Ryūlóng 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if the page should be full protected - users should not be completely shut out from Wikipedia unless they are abusing their talk page, in my opinion. I'll wait for another sysop to see what they think should be done though. Cowman109^Talk 07:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Page has been full protected by Pgk for unblock request abuse. Cowman109^Talk 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: Article was recently greenlit on Fark.com. Some IP vandalism has already occurred, and it is likely to get worse. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Support: The site was 'Farked', and as a result, there has been a constant barrage of vandalism. As stubblyh stated, now that it has been 'greelit', there will be many more visitors driving to the article which will only increase the vandalism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi protected so we don't have another Colbert Report mess. Cowman109^Talk 05:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FC Chernomorets Odessa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection: Page has been subject to edit wars in a conflict described here, [13]. User is convinced that this is the case and has repeatedly moved the page, even though he has no expertise in the area. Issue is also a part fo an ongoing edit-war here, here, and here. --Palffy 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

support (even if it is something on itself, unrelated to everything else)--Kwame Nkrumah 21:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected from moves as this appears to be a move warring issue. Cowman109^Talk 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And I recently unprotected after speaking with those involved and given recent evidence of the official name. Should move warring continue I will reprotect it. Cowman109^Talk 03:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:68.53.7.182 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:68.53.7.182|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - Blocked user continues to remove warnings and make personal attacks, as well as vandalizing the page in other, more disruptive ways. tmopkisn ^tlka 00:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

NoteL Vandalism reverted after protection. Meant to do it before but forgot.++Lar: t/c 00:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Memphis, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full or Semi-protection - an anon with a non-static IP continues to add unreferenced information about a non-notable Memphis musician in the article and is making personal attacks on the article's talk page. Three registered users, myself included, have been discussing this with the anon and continually warning him/her about his/her behavior and numerous reverts in violation of 3RR to no avail. Semi-prot for a cooldown seems appropriate at this point (the article was semi-protected back in February, I think, for the exact same reason). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. The IP can be blocked anyway. Voice-of-All 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect, the anon's IP is non-static, so it would be very difficult to block effectively. Additionally, the anon has reverted 8 times in ~48 hours. I disagree with your assessment. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

66.239.212.0/24 would stop him.Voice-of-All 19:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 19:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The page was semi-protected by Cowman109 in response to a single set of trolling edits by an anonymous IP. It is not customary for low percentage pages to be protected, particularly talk pages. The user also claims that it is their right to have the page protected, and that it should not be removed without their "explicit written permission". Because of these issues I would ask that someone either unprotect the page or review it to confirm the protection. Ansell 12:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page as I've spoken with the IP user. Cowman109^Talk 16:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

After Cowman109 blocked the IP, the troll came back with another IP. That's why he semi-protected the page. I don't understand why admins are so afraid to semi-protect and so eager to lift semi-protection once it's there. I understand that talk pages are licensed under the GFDL, but I thought we are generally given more leeway in user space. I'm anticipating copious hate mail regarding this issue, and I want to ensure it won't happen again. That's why I think it's too early to lift semi-protection, and I don't want it to be lifted without my "explicit written permission". In early July, when I was considering leaving Wikipedia, Themindset suddenly renamed and relegated an article I wrote (now located at Homerun (film)). I was never informed or warned, and my stunned reaction escalated into another conflict. I don't want a repeat. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I wasn't trolling and the issue was resolved. --172.190.70.90 05:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The article page itself will never be ready to unlock if the argument is allowed to continue raging on the talk page. Huge ego and obstinate attitude. Some sort of drastic action needs to be taken, even if it is temporarily blocking the guilty parties Two editors are dominating the discussion. One puts massive amounts of text up as they rehash the same old arguments. One is vowing to attack the moment the page is unprotected. I don't know what else to do. George 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Declined - if the users can't discuss the changes on the talk page, then where else? I will look into the matter, though. Cowman109^Talk 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protect Two IP users are attacking the page at once. -- Selmo 05:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Decline as I have speedy deleted the page for being a non-notable group of people (Criteria A7 at WP:SPEEDY). Cowman109^Talk 05:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)