Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VoABot (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 1 October 2008 (BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. [PR: 1 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 1]). 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.

    Full protection Ongoing edit war/vandalism for over two years by multiple sock puppets. Katr67 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection There has been a steady carousel of disruptive edits from user/s objecting to the method being given in the article. Rather than discussing the matter, they are disrupting the page. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brussels municipalities, continued

    Request for semi-protection.

    After this request [1], some articles were not protected.

    Result, yes indeed, the anonymous IP is still busy were he can. He's still messing with following articles on the en.wikipedia at the moment:

    Thanks --LimoWreck (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection 14 reverts because of vandalism in the past 48 hours, may have been a significant amount of vandalism before this. PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Five random vandalisms just today, and many others before. This will be the third time I have had to request semi-protection this month or so. The article is a ripe and tempting target for slanderous vandalism (i.e. inserting a person's name). Therefore, while shorter durations are acceptable, I urge you to consider indefinite or at least very long term protection.Legitimus (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection Two anonymous users have been battling each other over a seemingly innocuous piece of detail, just as I solved the Scottish/British battle.--EchetusXe (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection an IP (the latest IP of 75.47.x.x) keeps adding a majorly-stale (Artisol2345 is long-gone) suspected sockpuppet template. --NE2 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, vandal storm.Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for two weeks. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, There's an IP user that keeps inserting Nazi images onto the page. Has used 3 different IP's so far..Templarion (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by User:FisherQueen —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection. Politically biased vandalism and comments being added due to her role in the US Vice-Presidential debate. To remain objective, protect article at least through 10/3/08 when this story will die down.Tiger4125 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs semi protection due to heavy IP attacks. Hobartimus (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. by User:Iridescent. Horologium (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect chronic vandalism; recently most edits have been dedicated to the addition of private server information. --Resplendent (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection , high-visibility; talk page of a main page transclusion.Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. I'm failing to see the risk here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection chronic vandalism; vast majority of edits are vandalism. This has been going on for some time--80.212.4.31 (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect Rampant IP vandalism lately. RedSpruce (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect chronic vandalism; vast majority of edits are vandalism. This has been going on for some time, has been semi-protected in the past Billwhittaker (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Over the last 4 days, this article have gone from 1 or 2 good faith edits with the odd vandalism to plenty of them which all have been reverted.Jay Pegg (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism, suspect IP-sockpuppetry of a previous abuser with similar pattern of behaviour (same epithets used to insult, same issue). Temp protection requested, 3RR violated..ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 05:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism, huh? Leave it for the admins to decide.
    Refusing to discuss on the talk page, proceeding against widely-held consensus, personal attacks using vile slurs both in revert commentary and on at least two people's talk pages... I report it as vandalism. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 05:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which widely-held consensus? Can you point that out to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.122.126 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection. Driveby anon attacks both slandering a living person (who has been named in reliable sources for doing something bad, but not some specific fiction being added), and anons removing cited evidence of the badness. Reliable sources published the badness yesterday, so a week of semi protection should be fine. 2005 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect Sections of it are being constantly changed by people adding in their own clubs/countries/leagues. Release is on Friday and it has been vandalised more frequently in the past couple of days DJDannyP//Talk2Me 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporarily semi-protect (again) ...excessive IP vandalism, the protection just expired yesterday and the article has already has 7 IP vandal edits as well as one instance of vandalism by a logged in user. ~ Troy (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Various IPs and new users repeatedly adding nonsense word 'climp'. Possibly related to this forum post: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2969765&userid=50137. See edits by Jherrycurlz and subsequent. SilentC (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. I'm not sure what the threshold is for page semi protection but this page is seeing a lot of vandalism by IPs. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection, say, a month or three? I placed some tags on this article a few months ago, and a dynamic IP anon keeps removing them( with no attempt to address the concerns, and no explanation given) even when replaced - it has taken the form of a long, slow edit war. I think 1 month should be long enough for the tags to be dealt with, provided they can actually remain on the page without anonymous removing them. Blocking anonymous is not viable given the dynamic IP. If the user wishes to continue reverting s/he will have to register an account, and maybe this can be talked out on that account’s talk page. Was previously semiprotected for 3 days, but anon resumed removing tags shortly after protection expired. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect high levels of IP vandalism. -Nard 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection Dispute, I am providing a WP:3 opinion on a dispute regarding RS and V between a named editor and 'an' IP editor. The page needs a period of stability and protection in order to enable a resolution to be found. Cheers .fr33kman -s- 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Site of multiple reversion edit war, with one party [2], possibly using sockpuppets for identical edits [3], [4], repeatedly inserting POV and unsourced content. JNW (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, A spurt of vandalism by a myriad of IP's recently, last 50 edits are almost all vandalism and reversions, with a few different constructive edits, mostly minor, sprinkled sparsely in. .Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Non-reliable sources are reporting Hamilton as part of a cheating scandal. Not yet able to include this in the article per WP:BLP, WP:Libel and WP:RS, but various new and anonymous editors are edit warring/vandalizing. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, After a one week edit-war earlier this month with an anonymous editor who was blocked, this person has returned from a slightly different ISP to continue posting the same controversial material with poor sources on a WP:BLP page.Sixdegrees2008 (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, High amounts of anonymous IP vandalism.DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 17:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    1 week semi-protection It's that time of year again. The page always gets lots of IP vandalism this time of year, and almost all the edits yesterday were adding or removing IP vandalism. Should be semi-protected for the next week of so, until the festival ends. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:24, 30 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 I think we should try unprotecting this one again. There seems to be less editing action and she isn't in the spotlight much anyway. Dswhite85 (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Dswhite85[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 Vandalism.Cflm001 (Talk) 12:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect living person (again). Repeated unsourced edit claiming he died on 17 September by dynamic IP. (Have checked no reports of death on Google News.) Qwfp (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 08:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. 2-3 days perhaps. JavierMC 05:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.LAAFansign review 23:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 08:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Heavy vandalism.E Wing (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - Kevin (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection There is an ongoing editwar over the birthplace of Omid Kordestani, i know him and he was born in the city which is mentioned in the article.

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety talk 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Heavy IP vandalism of from multi-IPs throughout the day, no apparent sign its gonna stop soon.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months. Tiptoety talk 03:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Multiple vandalism from Ireland IPs in the 78.152.*.* range and 89.19.75.254.DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety talk 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.LAAFansign review 23:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of twenty four hours. Tiptoety talk 03:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.LAAFansign review 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety talk 03:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Near daily anonymous IP vandalism inclusive of obscenities and large deletions of material LLDMart (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety talk 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. IP vandalism. Edgehead5150 16:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of twenty four hours. Tiptoety talk 03:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection There is an ongoing editwar over the inclusion of a graphic showing the dynamics of the piece, and a concurrent discussion on the talk page; currently the consensus is 2:1 for retention (with two neutral) but the editor in the minority persists in removing against this consensus. Protection is requested to enable a proper debate to occur with input from interested parties while preserving the status quo ante of the article. This debate only started yesterday and has not yet had time to develop. As an interested editor, and Admin, obviously I cannot apply protection myself. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 01:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 72 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I figure 3 days should be enough time to figure out this dispute. Obviously if there's still an issue, let me know. --Smashvilletalk 01:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection , This article is under peristent attack from IPs based out of Redondo, California that are consistently re-adding pov skewed content in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. Clear edit summaries are given for reversion and warnings issued but the warnings are ignored and the IP simply switches to another address to continue these destructive edits. Strongly suspect that this is becoming a WP:COI issue and that the subject of the article, or someone related to them, is responsible for trying to elevate the historical notability of the article subject when, in fact, they are just a musical footnote who barely pass WP:MUSIC when they are disconnected from the band that they were in very briefly in the early 1980s..The Real Libs-speak politely 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Smashvilletalk 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Some heavy random IP vandalism over the last hour or so..-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 days. I do not want to be bugged on my talk page about this. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=242312383"