Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Howard the Duck (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 18 September 2008 (→‎{{la|Angel Locsin}}: please reconsider). 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 full protection Article has been under attack since yesterday by multiple SPAs and IPs apparently associated with a Finnish online forum. BLP concerns here. Deor (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi protection Vandalism, Return of the IP vandalism following expiry of previous semi-protection..DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect for 2 weeks. High levels of IP vandalism. --Jimbo[online] 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:The Willy on Wheels (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, User talk page of a long ago blocked sockpuppet. Has recently been abusing helpme template on the user talk page..Nick—Contact/Contribs 14:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Regular similar vandalism, and that's just since I started watching the page a couple of days ago..Traditional unionist (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Indefinite semi-protection is only used when an article is the target of endemic and repeated vandalism which several escalating periods of temporary semi-protection have failed to stop. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect for 2 weeks. High level of IP vandalism. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection. Repeated IP vandalism from multiple IP rangers.  Hazardous Matt  13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — content being added by IPs is sometimes constructive, sometimes not so much, but rarely does it hit vandalistic levels. Locking out the good content would be a net detriment when the vandalism does not seem to be out of control. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection. Permanent inserting of uneferenced POVs. -- R.Schuster (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protect. High level of vandalism from a banned user for months already. See the if not convinced, and the history page for a) POV-pushing, b) reversion of POV-pushing, c) reversion of (b) and reversion of (c). –Howard the Duck 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, report the user at WP:AIV or WP:ANI if he kicks off again. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone reconsider? Even a full-protect for 2 weeks. The reason why it is semi-protected since early this year and mostly since April is that the sockpuppet uses IPs to edit to add fanboy edits. Now that IPs can't edit, s/he uses a new sock for every sock that's indef blocked. It's a vicious cycle. –Howard the Duck 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection vandalism and removal of large amounts of sourced content. Some of the anons already have accounts, so semi-protection won't do.

    Fully protected for 5 days or so. All that over a POV tag? Cripes! Trying to get folks on talk Xavexgoem (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:24.247.194.83 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, User has a 24-hr block.E Wing (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (Block was extended) Xavexgoem (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Repetitive vandalism by rotating IPs..Prince of Canada t | c 10:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding: the user also removed the RPP here. Prince of Canada t | c 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: IP range has been blocked for 24h, but I'd really rather not have to go through this again 24h from now. Prince of Canada t | c 11:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection. Large amount of IP vandalism over the last 2 weeks, editors cannot keep up: errors of fact being introduced into article. Thanks. hike395 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --slakr\ talk / 11:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protect. Constant IP vandalism. This is the 3rd request for semi-protection within 10 days... R.Schuster (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --slakr\ talk / 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-check, the last semi-protection expired 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC), already a few hours later the next vandalism happened. There are 2-3 vandalism daily! -- R.Schuster (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Persistent IP vandalism.Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, seems to have stopped. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Consistent pattern of vandalism over the past month. .∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 02:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Moved beneath the heading. -Jéské (v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!) 02:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection vandalism by different IP addresses and some apparently have accounts referring to derogatory remarks about town and apparently among themselves all on September 17,2008. 70.156.95.11 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection vandalism and removal of large amounts of sourced content. Some of the anons already have accounts, so semi-protection won't do.

    Already protected. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. IPs constantly adding information about a possible album leak on P2P file networks. Cannibaloki 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, protection would not be in accordance with the protection policy. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Ph:Starting a new page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary full protection Vandalism.Prince of Canada t | c 23:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Vandalism, Anonymous level of IP vandalism. 121.96.106.55 (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protect, Edit warring, spamming. 121.96.106.55 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, seems to have settled down. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Semi protection for at least one week. Jackson's premature touchdown celebration during the recent Monday Night Football game generated a lot of publicity and resulting IP vandalism to the article. Hopefully after the next Eagles' game it will have subsided. BrokenSphereMsg me 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 18 September 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 , Indefinite protection by an admin of his own user page for over two years now seems grossly excessive reaction to a couple of incidents of minor vandalism.Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    unprotection , No real vandalism for months now, looking at the logs..NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Stifle (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has an edit comment making it permanently protected, but no justification is given on the talk page. There is also no proof of massive or systematic vandalism in the page history. It appears to have been protected when it appeared as an "in the news" item, some time later it was deprotected, and immediately reprotected. 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Stifle (talk) 15:28, 18 September 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

    Temporary semi-protection, Anonymous level of vandalism, IP blanking. 121.96.109.126 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Alexf42 10:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection: I don't get why this won't be protected. This page is for tropical cyclones, it even says that at the bottom of the page. This needs to be protected, tropical cyclones and football have nothing in common. ---Shadow (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I previously declined this request: (see [1]), but would be happy for another admin to review it. CIreland (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I believe that CIreland has a good point, but even if one were to categorize these anon edits as vandalism - there's not enough of it to justify protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism. This article always attracts kooks, but for the last couple of days there's been an uptick in vandalism. I can't figure out if this is a blog post or what, but maybe a couple of days at semi will clear it away. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. & hoping that the news reports will attend elsewhere by that time ;) SkierRMH (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, High IP vandalism traffic only going to get worse with a pending national election..The Real Libs-speak politely 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 30 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Covering thru upcoming election. SkierRMH (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Huge amounts of abuse by a variety of IPs (possibly one IP-hopping vandal, but possibly not) today.Vianello (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SkierRMH (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At least 6-months of semi-protection, article has long history of long-term protection followed by vandalism followed by more protection. It's unprotected and is getting vandalized up to several times a day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Protected by Tiptoety SkierRMH (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of vandalism from new sockpuppet accounts. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Puppetmaster & puppets have been blocked. If vandalism reoccurs please re-list for further action. SkierRMH (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Its irrational to leave this page unprotected - It will potentially be one of the most viewed articles on encyclopedia within the coming months. It has been subject to sporadic bouts of ip vandalism, which is only set to increase. I recommend semi-protecting this page, at least until the conclusion of the elections..Superflewis (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. And in the interest of neutrality, I've also done John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Semi-protected for a period of 48 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Ongoing more-than-daily IP vandalism..DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. The article is vandalized by anonymous contributors on an almost daily basis. IP contributions to the article have so far been limited to a handful of spelling and grammar tweaks. The article was semi-protected 12 November 2007 to 16 August 2008 with a noticeable decrease in vandalism without any noticeable decrease in useful contributions. Peter Isotalo 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:II MusLiM HyBRiD II (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi Protect. I really dont know why, but these IP's are always replacing my talk page with muslims rock and other crap... Im getting ticked off, so best to protect it. Thanks. II MusLiM HyBRiD II 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Weird. Let us know when you would like it removed; I'm a big believer in letting users control their space from vandalism. Cool Hand Luke 03:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:82.47.211.3 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, Disruptive editing and abuse of {{helpme}} and {{unblock}} templates..GtstrickyTalk or C 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it has been protected. Never mind. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. For the benefit of the bot ;) TalkIslander 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect, en masse: A bunch of templates images in this category are fully protected. The proposal for their use in articles has been categorically rejected by the WP community, several months ago, yet they remain protected, and this thwarts the ability of non-admin gnomes to add {{warning}} tags to them, to notify editors of the consensus against applying them to article pages. Doing so is important, because many of them still imply that they should be added to articles, and most editors are unaware of the details of the centralized discussion and its results. There are too many for a long series of redundant editprotected requests to really be practical, and most will also need WP:MFD templates applied to them at some point, requiring yet more editprotected tagging unless they are unprotected. The images in this category that are referenced by inclusion in the debates around the "from-owner" system should not be MfDed, or their disappearance will render those precedential discussions very hard to follow, as they are frequently visually cited. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'm being dim, but there are no templates in that category? Lots of images, though. Splash - tk 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Typo; I meant "images". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the single image Image:Replace this image male.svg has thousands of references to it (I stopped counting at 8000). Unprotecting would enable vandals to replace the image with something even less useful, particularly since it shows up on zillions of biographies of living persons. I don't think unprotection is a good idea. —EncMstr (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Ongoing IP vandalism with edits like that (apparently isertion of false numbers)Biophys (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. The particular edit you difflink there was reverted in 9 minutes ... by an anon user who would not have been able to make the edit were the article semiprotected! Looking at the history, I see a certainly busy article but actually minimal reversion of vandalism - it looks like anons are contributing at least a meaningful quantity of good edits and by no means every IP edit is vandalism. The vandalism there is is being handled fine by the occasional rollback/undo. In short I don't think the vandalism level is presently such as would justify protection of a busy article nor, in fact, most less-busy articles. Splash - tk 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection, 24 hours. Cool off LAME edit war and force onto Talk: page. (Note: I am one of the parties embroiled). —Sladen (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. If you are one of the parties you can cool off the edit war by stopping! You can also start a discussion on the talk page without needing protection. There've only been a small number of edits, and in fact you've not been reverting one another, but gradually trying to find a situation you can both agree on. This is rather much how the wiki process is supposed to work. I'd advise not using edit summaries as a substitute for proper discussion, though. Splash - tk 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=239317109"