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.

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

Feel free to protect it back. I was just wanted to make some changes on my user page. Mike Garcia 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Episodes of Lost (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection Anonymous IP keeps adding unverified speculation to articles and does not cite any verifiable sources. The IP has violated the 3RR, but the report on the Admin's noticeboard has been ignored. The IP has also ignored comments on his/her talk page and requests to use the article talk page to discuss these changes. This article is currently marked for deletion, however the afd is over a week old and should have been closed by now (by my count it will result in keep, or no consensus). Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its AfDed, so I rather give peope a greater chance to expand it, as that is one way things are allowed to get out of AfD, and is in fact, encouraged. Off course I doubt that wil happen...but still.Voice-of-All 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi Protection. Anonymous IP addresses are constantly changing the band's genre, when we are trying hard NOT to definitively specify because it's such a contentious issue (as per WP:NPOV). Page also often vandalised by anons. Cardinal Wurzel 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection- For a cool down period. Seems to be under spam attack from users promoting the fansite stadium-arcadium.com in violation of WP:EL. Attempts at a mediation were made prior to this request as seen on the talk page. Thanks maxcap 14:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi protection is still needed. An IP persists in adding a link while it is currently being discussed in the talk page. The IP address appears to be dynamic, which makes things a tad more difficult. Attempts have been made to get the user to stop, but they do not listen. Cowman109^Talk 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

semi-protection. There are a few users who keeep on removing the word "Christian" citing that a band can't be titled "Christian". The band in fact is and I would like some protection to stop people from removing it. I'm assuming it's because their album is going to be released on June 20, 2006. Thanks. -Myxomatosis 06:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is being repeatedly vandalised or unnecessarily reverted to vandalised, defamatory, false, poorly organized and ungrammatical versions by User:Holywarrior. Please ban him if you find it appropriate and protect this sensitive article on an influential clan of the North Indian social hierarchy. Thanks.

Protected by user:Bhadani.Voice-of-All 19:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. This page is consistently (although not constantly) vandalized by unregistered IPs posting false information in the cast page or elsewheres around the article. It was vandalized twice today; one person said "Riley McCoy" is playing "Supercoolboy", another IP saying "Mr.Photato Head" (sic) is playing "Jimmy Jimmy Coa Coa Pop". The last time I asked for page protection all I got was a shrug and the vandals kept on pouring in.--CyberGhostface 23:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protection, as Larrionda is a World Cup referee, there are PLENTY of upset people, both in Italy and the USA, that feel it necessary to constantly vandalize the page. As you can see from the history, it's getting almost five edits a minute almost consistently. Someone put the "semi-protected" tag on the page, but that was in name only, as it was not an administrator. The length of the protection probably wouldn't be necessary for more than a week. Bkessler23 20:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. There are a TON of reverts, but analysis reveals that productive edits (and by new users) is also getting through, and the page is being managed quite well (its also just getting a lot of edits total) for noow. I'll keep an eye on it. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Traditional counties of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary Protection, unless the protecting admin has a different view. A revert war is going on. It needs to cool down. It is stated by one editor that a banned editor is vandalising the page and thus reverts and counter reverts have been going on all day. I got into the middle by unhappy serendipity, and have been watching the mess since then. If the editor who is causing the problems is a banned editor I think the page should be protected and reverted to "pre-banned editor state". Otherwise I don't think it matters much which state it's in. They need to cool it and reoslve the disagreement, not mess the page about. Once tempers have cooled then they can solve the page's contents Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Voice-of-All 01:55, 18 June 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.

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

Want to make sure the changes I'm about to make or put on my user page are not changed. Mike Garcia 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Un-protected for now. Voice-of-All 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Article has been protected for almost two weeks. Unprotect but maintain protection against moves as that has been a source of contention. Homey 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Article indeed need to be unprotected. Not just moves were the source of contention but protection have not solved any problem. Zeq 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has been semi-protected too long. Remove all protection. --Sunholm(talk) 12:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't. That article is just a prime target for vandalism. Unprotect that, and I bet all hell will break loose. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But the Bogdanov Affair was protected after a while. --Sunholm(talk) 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not time yet. It's still a no for GWB. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no ArbCom case like the Bogdanov Affair, and editing seems peaceful. --Sunholm(talk) 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason we have the option to do semi-protection is this article. Unprotecting has been tried repeatedly, generally only to last several hours, and the list of protection and unprotection events for this page is several screens long. If there is an article that does not get unprotected, than it is this one. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that! I was wrong!! --Sunholm(talk) 14:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not about being right or wrong, but about keeping vandalism at a accaptable level, and some articles by nature of their subject are just super magnets .... :-) Unfortunately... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See protection list for this page.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For a good example of the kind of problems premature unprotection causes, take a look at the edit history for Tony Blair for the last few months. SP-KP 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the next ones top go permanent as far as I can tell. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

This should not be protected as there is nothing in the talk page at all. Kza

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

Article has been protected for over too weeks. While protection is not an endorsment it creates the impression that this strong one sided POV version is what wikipedia endorse. Zeq 14:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit conflict has not yet been resolved, but I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit conflict was not resolved in two weeks of intesive mediation exactlu because the article is currently so POV that one side did not want to change it. The protection just suit them well. Getting edits on this article (while vigoursly enforcing 3RR) will help move it toward a compromise. It can always be re protected if this does not work although protection dos not seem to induce compromise. Zeq 03:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Humm, what you propose is to force editors to the negotiation table because unprotecting would lead to edit warring. That is a solid reason NOT to unprotect the page (and the related pages). The problem is not 3RR, but WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOT. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not at all what I am proposing. I am proposing that carefull editing of this article is desired because it has been protected for two weeks of failed mediation. The mediation failed because the article was protected at a very POV version. Do you propose to keep it protected (it it's one-sided version) for ever ? If not then why not unprotect now there is no change that would come from similar type of discussions - that much we have seen. Zeq 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If people can not even negotiate at the talk page, and it is basically a crude discussion with delete the article, no merge it in with something else, expand this article, and you expect that carefull editing will work. Sorry, but having mediated there, I expect just the same edit revert and move war because people can not even agree on the title. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

comment : Kim is the mediator who tried for over two weeks to work on this article. She knows very well that one side wants to keep the article as it is. Zeq 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Zeq has been banned from the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The above fact is unrelevent to the request to unprotect. This only shows that Kim (who presented herself as unbiased mediator) now taking sides against un protection of this article . Zeq 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Just Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protected because of edit war over name change. Consensus after more than a week is to change to US invasion of Panama as decided on the talk page. Añoranza 10:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The concensus is to change it to Invasion of Panama. Pleas e do not misstate the concensus. Please can people wait till after more talking is done on the name, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As the article has already been protected for more than a week because of you and you are the only one favouring the propaganda name I invite you to just leave it. Añoranza 12:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected by CSTAR. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Protected for about three weeks. No discussion on talk page, inexperienced user is asking for unprotection. Calwatch 06:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected by user:Jacoplane.Voice-of-All 19:14, 18 June 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

Template:Rovoam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full or Semi-Protection (whichever's better) - I created this template to put on the permanently blocked pages that might be him. I do not want him or any other "friends" of his to delete this, so protecting it might lower the risk. I have also told Jimbo Wales about this.

Micoolio101 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101

Semi-protected due to vandalism risk and lack of need to edit. Voice-of-All 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection requested. Controversial politico involved in active campaign. Content-oriented revert war imminent, anon party is sympathetic but arguing on article page and apparently impervious to policy args. --Flawiki 12:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 01:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

This is going to seem like an odd request, but I've built my user page into the code for a high traffic user block template, would someone mind sprotecting it against anon vanalism? otherwise vandalism = loss of template functionality--AOL user 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• wait, better idea, I've moved it to {{User:AOL user/PAGENAMEEE.js}}, which is protected by default, so you don't actually have to anything--AOL user 04:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Just look at all the vandalisms that occured following unprotection. Semi-protect please. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected by User:Bookofjude.Voice-of-All 20:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Previously edit warred over regarding whitespace; one party has conceded. See end of section at Talk:Albert Einstein#Consensus for the user's confirmation. ~ PseudoSudo 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected by Fastfission; resolved. ~ PseudoSudo 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i think the coast is clear now[clunk on wood]The2ndringofpower 02:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It was just protected today; I don't think a few more days will hurt. As that article is quite a heavily-vandalized one, it's possible this may be s-protected fro quite some time. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's ironic: there is a dispute over the article, but below the protection template, there is also a cleanup tag. Either:

a: semi-protect it so that cleanup can occur OR b: get an admin to remove the cleanup tag. -Tracker 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait unti; the edit war calms down.Voice-of-All 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

There is a dispute going on but I think a consensus had been reached, the C.S. Lewis quote won't be added at this time or at that place in the article, because it seems out of place. Please unprotect this article so others and I may edit it to improve it if we choose. Thank you. Scifiintel 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently only s-protected, by User:SlimVirgin. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

4chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. The majority of the userbase of the message boards in question will and have vandalized the article many times. A recent blanking of the article to a single phrase was then proceeded to be posted on one of the boards for the user's own purposes. Protecting the article from IP and new users will deter such vandalism in the future. Ryulong 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not enough to protect currently. Please watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heavy vandalism and misinformation. First couple of days off of semi-protection and it already has a revision history of a couple pages long. Semi-protection needed. — The King of Kings 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. This page, in the last 24 hours has received many blatant vandalism edits from a few anonymous users. I think it could be productive to semi-protect until this annoyance has passed. M0RHI 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Voice-of-All 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. The page, in particular the "Confirmed roster" section, has been edited numerous times by anon IP addresses adding in either unconfirmed details or just vandalism. --Oakster ^(Talk) 15:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. This page has been vandalized nonstop since yesterday (mainly by 207.200.116.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) but not without help) and AIAV requests are fruitless apparently because the main vandal is on an AOL IP. I am now in an edit war with several various IPs all with the same edits. I think the edits are a joke perpetrated by a message board referenced in the same vandalism that is re-added every few minutes. -- Omicronpersei8 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Voice-of-All 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I request that this page be unprotected. I also request that frequent editor SargeBaldy not be allowed to protect it in the future, per policy. If this page remains protected despite this request, I request that a protection template be displayed. WickedWanda 18:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't too surprising, seeing as you're the ban evader the page is being protected against. I've restored the banner though. I'm not sure who removed it. (OK, apparently I did by mistake.) Sarge Baldy 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Falun_Gong (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Falun_Gong|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page cannot be edited. ?

• 06:18, 16 June 2006 Miborovsky protected Falun Gong (socks of blocked user trying to bypass 3RR [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
• 00:12, 11 June 2006 SlimVirgin protected Talk:Falun Gong (semi-protecting as requested against talk-page abuse [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

There are your reasons. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)