Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Ironie (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 30 August 2008 (→{{la|Bowie High School (Arlington, Texas)}}: SemiProtect for 1 week). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"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.
    Shortcuts

    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
    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.

    temporary semi-protection Heavy vandalism. JNW (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pigman☿ 03:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, for a few days, until this weirdness ends..Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined, It's a FA right now. -Royalguard11(T) 02:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection repeated and constant vandalism of new page set up about husband of presumptive Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Tvoz/talk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    re-requesting temporary semi-protection: again, some users keep insisting on posting irrelevent game deals in Australia (ie. only paying $2 at a certain store). Utterly ridiculous. JAF1970 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. There appear to be anon editors adding viable content as well, and the level of vandalism appears low. This almost sounds like a content dispute? DMacks (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will let you know, DMacks. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Dmacks, the guy is insisting on posting that completely irrelevent info again. I didn't post other game deals like Amazon and Gamespot giving away the SCC because it has no relevency to the Development of Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relevant to the distribution of SCC because this is the only way it was available in Australia. We can not buy it at stores, it was distributed with a newspaper for one day only.Concretecold (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like more of a content dispute, than page protection issue. Even if it's vandalism: it's still not major enough to have the page protected over. An edit war between JAF and another user isn't a justified reason to protect a page. It should be noted, JAF has had serious issues at several Spore articles with editors. Sometimes it's correct to say he is reverting vandalism, but other times he just doesn't agree with the reliable sources. He's attacked people in edit summaries, as well as on talk pages. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection Vandalism, Vandalism is common and page was recently deleted, Newgrounds forums suggest this might occur multiple times subsequent to revisions. .UniversalBread (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Maxim (☎) 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection repeated vandalism and deleting for no reason of my article. Same user, same IP address. I don't know if I'm supposed to include my username or not....

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Maxim (☎) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary-protect. High level of IP vandalism. --Jimbo[online] 23:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Done Maxim (☎) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Maxim (☎) 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, anonymous IP's keep adding unsourced POV statments to article..- -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      User(s) blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Tonight is the finale, and there is heavy IP vandalism .-- iMatthew T.C. 21:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 12 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe 3 days would be more reasonable... -- iMatthew T.C. 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Repeated vandalism concerning rumours of proposed transfer to a new club without any WP:RS quoted. Peanut4 (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: is this vandalism, or a content dispute? Vandalism has to have malicious intent - which this doesn't have? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Cavalry, I've seen some vandalism, seemed that semi-protecting the article would be a good idea now. Maxim (☎) 02:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection edit war. Please apply it until discussion finishes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect: Repeated vandalism of the first sentence of the article (the pronunciation) even with a comment stating not to change it. — FatalError 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      User(s) blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temp semi-protection Could you please protect this page as it is subject to vandalism. Lot of vandalism I've reverted it for at least 8-10 times. Please quicken this. Mspraveen (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection This person keeps up with the Charlie Sheen BS on the page, and since there's not going to be any new info on the game anytime soon, can you please full protection for a month or so? Update: No seriously. This needs to stop. JAF1970 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have filed a checkuser case to see if a rangeblock of 67.236.245.9/27 would fix this problem. I will re-protect the page for 3 days pending the results. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: Cross-posted at WP:ANI caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Repeated POV vandalism from various IP addresses over the past few months. alanyst /talk/ 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Spam and vandalism from unregistred users Denis Tarasov (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. One IP user warned. -- Alexf42 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - The vast majority of the IP edits to this article are vandalism. See the edit history for the past 5 days. D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Perennial vandalism because the article's subject is a lot into news these days...please see the history for details on vandalism by multiple anons..Mspraveen (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 22:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, The content of this article has been changing greatly and rapidly over at least the past few days. This article is as highly contested as the region itself, and there has been lots of back-and forth editing. In good faith, I think that the goal is largely to have a totally neutral page, but there is intense disagreement over what constitutes this. ∴Walkeraj 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected indefinitely. - Request unprotection when consensus is reached. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Lots of annoying comments left on this page. 15+ vandalism to my page. Could use IP block.ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Declined I don't see any edits by users other than yourself since late June. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly because I haven't been on lately. However, when I was active, there was usually a vulgar comment about every week. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    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.

    unprotection , The article has been protected for 2 years from movement, per WP:PW/ANC, consensus has been approved to move the article, but after looking at the logs, it has been protected from moving..SRX 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Unprotected -Royalguard11(T) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Please unprotect the page MacFamilyTree. I want to add a short description of this best selling mac genealogy software as well as the system requirements/vendor link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.91.171 (talk)

      Not unprotected This page was deleted three times in a short timespan not long ago. Before we unprotect the page and allow for the article to be recreated, you need to make sure that it if sufficiently notable. To do this, you need to create a draft form of the article. I suggest registering an account (or logging in if you already have one) and creating the draft in your userspace. You other option is to post the draft at Articles for Creation to see if it is acceptable. Thanks, caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 01:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    unprotection , protection worked like a charm, thank you guys. In the meantime issue seems to be resolved with a help of Mozilla. So I guess it is safe to unprotect talk page, since it would let nonregistered users to leave comments/sugestions... TestPilottalk to me! 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Already unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , A DRV would be a huge waste of time. The afd which resulted in a delete was before he was the spouse of of a Vice-President candidate. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As a real musician with a sizable cult following, Doctor Steel deserves an article of his own - perhaps with semi-protection to keep his rabid fans from changing it from an encyclopedic article to pure nonsense. Godhatescleveland (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Full Protection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.247.39 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article keeps getting unprotected and hit hard by vandals. The article is quickly becoming completely useless.
    Extreme vandalism today. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protected -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Until 12pm EDT. Lots of unsourced speculation and some vandalism by IPs.Elliskev 12:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection should be longer than until 12pm EDT. Young Trigg (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MZMcBride removed protection. Why? This article is being hit hard. --Elliskev 16:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Semi-protected I (along with two other admins) re-protected it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism Chad Johnson officially changed his name to Chad Ocho Cinco. Flood of IPs have been taking over the article and changing the wording in the entire article. Needs a major clean up and time to let this name change thing die down (2 weeks?). --Endlessdan 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Question: Is it the redirect or the target that you want protected? Stifle (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The target. There have been five reverts in the last twelve hours. --Endlessdan 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    protection until talk page dispute finalised A section of text dealing with date formats has stood since December 2007.[1] The wording is now disputed and discussion on the talk page is heated, with multiple proposed wordings and none having any consensus. A recent inadvertent alteration of text (see here for diffs and discussion) has lead to renewed edit-warring on the project page. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a single editor, upholding a minority opinion, who has made three exact reverts in the last 10 hours. His latest is [2]. His claim of inadvertence is supported by solely by telepathy, as the talk page in question explains. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Fully protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Dispute, Lame edit war.Troikoalogo (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Full Protect. Per this borked diff [3], banned user [RL name redacted] has apparently done something to require oversight of part of his talk page, Requesting full protection to prevent further abuse. MBisanz talk 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fully protected indefinitely. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TheKohser was removing names on his talk page following the lead of the oversited edit. Page protection wasn't needed. Furthermore, he was engaging in dialog with several administrators. I don't believe he outed anyone, merely used some well known RL names. Please reverse protection - not needed. --Duk 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    temporary semi-protection Vandalism Anonymous vandals have returned after the end of previous semi protect. This is the result of a mention on a UK podcast. Millichip (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected semied for 2 weeks despite the slow amount of vandalism, since the vandalized versions stayed unreverted for long. -- lucasbfr talk 09:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection. Sockpuppet edits from a banned user; reverted several times but still continues on adding un-sourced/speculative statements. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected A sock has been targeting this article for the whole year. The last five protections didn't deter him, so I've semi-protected indefinitely. Spellcast (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism All recent IP edits over the last couple of days have been petty vandalism, e.g. replacing the page with "poop". Justin talk 08:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Kusma (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:AOL user message bot 2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary full protection Vandalism, A user, passing himself off as a bot, still has access of this talk page. The user has caused a little havoc with a couple anon accounts and used this and another "bot" account to revert the talk pages of those anon accounts. It would be nice to limit this user's access to this talk page as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

      Declined. Can't see any real problems here that would justify protecting this talk page; the user just fixed the redirect to point to the correct indefblock message. Kusma (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Wikipedia page currently being talked about on a national breakfast show on BBC Radio 1, this has caused a dramatic increase in joke edits.Andyreply 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. DMacks (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection: at least until the games are released, since anonymous IPs keep insisting on posting unverified Australian release dates, which have been recently contradicted by EA in their press release. There's also silly edits being made as well. JAF1970 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected until 7 September 2008. DMacks (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection This is perhaps the third or fourth time I've requested for protection. After a protection is lifted, one or two weeks later, anon vandalism starts appearing. In fact, in the past 24 hours, there have been no productive edits at all: just vandalism and reverts. --haha169 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Happyme22 (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, accelerating unsourced, speculative edits by new accounts and IPs..Elliskev 21:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Already protected. by User:Rx StrangeLove. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=235116420"