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 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 |
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
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.
Ann Althouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection, to halt edit warring. After a minor blogosphere controversy involving the article subject, several editors were insistent that the article reference the controversy. I resisted at first, but eventually resigned myself to having such a section, and refocused on insisting the discussion remained NPOV and included all relevant context. Repeated attempts to turn the article into a smear attack against its subject, primarily by unregistered users, ensued. On April 3, this problem became so egregious that I requested, and was granted, semi protection for the page for a period of one week. [1]
Once that period expired, after a brief period of calm, edit warring resumed. After a sustained edit dispute over the last 48 hours, described in this 3RR collateral filing, I concluded that the best (if not the only) way to resolve the controversy and end the edit war was to eliminate the entire section in question, and summarize the incident it described in a brief, neutral paragraph.[2] This was a significant compromise on my part, since the new version of the article would reference the controversy yet include none of the context that I believe the article should include; but as a compromise position to bring some measure of stability back to the article, it seemed the only way to go. It was swiftly reverted, [3] (by a user with a protracted history of minor tag abuse, see [4], at that). I have reverted in turn, but see no reason to believe that further abuse will not ensue if some action isn't taken to prevent it.
Seeing no other alternative, I now request that the article be fully-protected in the version of my 12:33 24 April 2007 edit, which I believe is a reasonable compromise text. Simon Dodd 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (hot!) 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect. Daily IP vandalism. Béka 10:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protect. Daily IP vandalism. Béka 10:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Daily IP vandalism. Scotchorama 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected – Steel 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Noel Fielding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protectmonster levels of IP vandalism, constantly reverted.Kfc1864 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
MDS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection. We need a cool down period in a long-running edit war. Hopefully editors will take this time read the relevant policies and guidelines, then actually contribute to the talk page with comments addressing the issues. The warring seems to be escalating now that legal threats have been made against multiple editors. --Ronz 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (hot!) 09:09, 24 April 2007 (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.
Hindutva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect so that biased information about article can also include crimes being done by Sang parivar against Christains and other minorites of India. Their idealogy is like Taliban and readers should also know the other side of the story. John Paul 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Joji Obara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect so that information about his sentencing and reaction to the sentence may be added. Thank you.Sparkzilla 10:42, 24 April 2007 (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. Majorly (hot!) 12:34, 24 April 2007 (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.
List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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)
- 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)
Fulfilled/denied requests
Ohio State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. - hmwithtalk 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Alison☺ 05:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Bill White (neo-Nazi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection is requested for this BLP about a far-right political activist. A few anon IPs have started making edits that seem to be trying to promote White, and in particular mention his business interests in the lead, which are not what he's notable for. The IPs may be White or his supporters. If it's one person, 3RR has been violated already. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse request - revert war with multiople IPs. -Will Beback · † · 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected – Steel 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its full protected. I'm logged in and can't edit. Pointlessarguing 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's semi-protected. Your account must be less than 4-days old, so you wont be able to edit semi-protected articles until your account is older than 4 days. Bmg916SpeakSign 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I had an old account once and can't get into it -- guess I forgot the password. In any case, can any objective person explain why anonymous users should be locked out of this discussion? The article as formulated by SlimVirgin is an identified disgrace, and this semi-protect is deleting legitimate edits. Look at the discussion page and the history of this article. Three or four wikipedians have repeatedly deleted changes made by dozens of other authors, deleting the consensus and protecting their own POV. Pointlessarguing 23:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
full protect. please review "protection". All but admins have been banned from editing, but problem is with anons? Actually, problem is with registered users and one admin. Pointlessarguing 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The page has been semi-protected because some anon IPs and one new account have arrived, and seem to be trying to promote White. If it's White himself, he's in COI and should make his specific points on the talk page, where they'll be taken into account. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the versions. Neither one promotes White. One admin Avraham has already called SlimVirgin's version a "lowB". Are we not allowed to fix it? Pointlessarguing 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[| :"Semi-protection should not be used In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. " ] Pointlessarguing 23:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm locked out because of false accusations. Why should this be? The existing article is a known problem article on Wikipedia -- so why can't anonymous users fix it? 68.10.35.153 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The page is semi-protected because the three of you, or the one of you, are revert warring, adding material that appears to try to promote White, and removing material that you feel is too critical of him. And if you're one person, you've violated 3RR. Several editors are asking you on talk to be very specific about your objections to the current article, so please do that instead of posting here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're revert warring? You and WIllBeBack have not only been revert warring, but abusing this process to protect your revertwarring. All the worst of Wikipedia coming out, as I said on the talk page. Pointlessarguing 00:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a complete abuse of Wikipedia. 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Declined If you continue to argue on this page then your comments will be removed. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty Ricky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection Too many anonymous IP adresses are vandalizing the page..Me and my sis against da world!!! 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - very little anon activity. A bit of POV-warring however - Alison☺ 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect so User:GimmeBot can archive it. The Placebo Effect 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unprotected Not required anymore. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hurricane Edith (1971) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
registered users only +expiry 1 day, Vandalism, This page is being vandalized as it is featured on the main page. Many IPs are attacking the page. zrulli 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Declined - Administrators do not protect the featured article of the day. // Sean William 03:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Protect Time period is up, waiting for Bureaucrats. None of whom are online. It ended 1 hr + ago. The Placebo Effect 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The RfA ends when it ends.... Majorly (hot!) 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Bethany Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Wave of vandalism. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Swansea University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. Hi there is shared IP 137.44.1.200 which is blanking 1 section the "Controversy", I have put up some warning and asked them to talk about it, but who ever is doing it just keeps going. Could some on please put up a semi-protect just in hope that they will attauly start talking about the section instead of just deleting it. Lanfiex 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Declined. After skimming the talk page he's clearly not vandalising and does seem to have valid points to make. Gonna keep an eye on it myself. – Steel 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Chantal Claret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. 22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)User:SignOfTheTimes
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Little Jimmy Urine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism.22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)User:SignOfTheTimes
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Quite a few edits, but not nearly enough vandalism for sprotection. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi Protection- There has been regular vandalism from various users. 67.150.125.137 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected – Steel 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Andrew Van De Kamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unprotect. The issue that the edit warring was based on has been sorted, and the two editors involved have stopped bickering. See talk page "Congratulations!" topic. Mentality 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unprotected – Steel 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Craig Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
semi-protect. This has been the target of a long term vandal from Australia since at least July 2006 using 58.84 prefixed IPs or 129.96 prefixed IPs registered to Flinders University. Libellous allegations are inserted into the article practically every time the page isn't semi-protected, including this edit yesterday. One Night In Hackney303 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Semi-protected - Phaedriel - 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Filip Šebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semi-protection - high levels of vandalism from various anon editors. WATP 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Declined Some vandalism, but not enough to justify protection at this time. Request protection again if vandalism increases from multiple unregistered users.--Húsönd 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full protection. There has been a high frequency of vandalism on the page today. Fully protect so that it can be cleared up by an administrator --Philip Stevens 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)