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 talk:62.158.82.123 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

temporary full protection User talk of banned user, Vandalise. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 14:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 8 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Oxymoron⁸³ 14:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary full protection. Edit warring taking place. Suggest protection until consensus is established Seraphim ^Whipp 13:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever/monobook.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection. It runs javascripts so my account could be compromised if the page is not protected. BalkanFever 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator All .js pages in the User: space are automatically full-protected to all users but the user who it belongs to.. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:To the lake (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection User page of editor blocked for disruption who is continuing to do so on his/her talk page. JuJube (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Already protected. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Temporary Full Protection I know but it is semi protect and I do believe that this requries full protection as registered users are also placing unacceptable insults on the page.

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Done by User:Jmlk17 The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Please put a high level of protection this page, high number of IP users vandalizing this page with plainly rude insults. A full block for a period of 4 weeks would be my neutral solution.

Already protected. Jmlk17 11:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection High level of IP vandals due to recent Test match in which he made some controversial decisions. --88.111.136.169 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 11:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Temporary Full Protection. Edit war. Content dispute between an anon, and a registered user. Malinaccier (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just some additional info: The content dispute involves one anon editor, and another user (User:ClanCC, if I'm not mistaken). ClanCC appears to have broken the WP:3RR. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Clone High minor characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

'semi-protection' - Ongoing attempts by a user with dynamic IPs to add unsourced, challenged information to the article, resulting in an edit war between that user at other editors. This has been going on for nearly a year, and has resulted in prior blocks, but the editor just avoids these with IP changes. (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/68.9.184.169 for more detail.) Torc2 (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

'semi-protection'. Please reconsider, there is a lot of unconstructive IP activity on that page.--The Dominator (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined - IP activity seems to be mostly in good faith; a content dispute about what is too trivial and what is not does not necessitate semiprotection. Kusma (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Parents Television Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

'Temporary semi-protection. This article has always been a target for IP trolls. However, the trolling is becoming troublesome because it is coming from multiple IP's and usually does not get reverted until several hours later and it has been increasing in the past week. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 08:15, 6 January 2008 (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.

Intelligent Design

Page was protected after the matter was resolved. There never was an edit war.

I made a suggestion about attributing a view, and User:Dave Souza reverted it. (1RR, perfectly normal)

I thought his rv reason was insufficient, so I reverted his rv. (1RR, happens a lot if not "normal")

Dave reverted back. (2RR, pushing the envelope but not a violation)

After this, I wrote on Dave's page indicating that I understood his reasoning and then decided to let his reversion stand, because I did not want to revert any further.

I am on parole, so a second reversion on my part would be 2RR. But I only made one revert (Dave made two reverts, which is fine with me).

I don't see how this constitutes an edit war, so I request that the page be unprotected.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of discussion at Talk:Intelligent design about the matter in question, and I have no intention of going against consensus about it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

unprotection , The user must use their user talk page in order to be unblocked. Advice can not be given by other non-admin to guide the user. Please at least give him a chance to redeem him self..Tiddly-Tom 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined Not willing to override until we see how the "please try and ask the protecting admin first before making a request here" approach pans out. DMacks (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for my action was that the admin was not very active. Also, I though that by posting here, it might be quicker to get the page unprotected. I though that the quicker it was unprotected, the less chance that the potentially good user would be scared away. I have left a message for the admin, hopefully he will see it soon. Tiddly-Tom 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I-Doser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection The page is currently protected from recreation and has been previously deleted as violating CSD A7 (that was 9 months ago, the article definitely passes notability criteria now) and CSD G11. I was looking for the article yesterday and was very surprised not to find one. Any chance of getting the page unprotected to create an article that won't violate CSD G11? Cheers! BanRay 11:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined Woody (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (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.

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

Full protection pending discussion about the treatment of the plot. User:Pixelface on one side and several other editors on the other are engaging in a substantial recent edit war over this. --Tony Sidaway 07:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Please come back when the discussion has been resolved. Best of luck! Jmlk17 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continual vandalism from various IP's.Tiptoety ^talk 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi Protection. Request semi-protection has recieved much anon vandalism since the last semi-protect ran out. --neonwhite user page talk 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Methuen High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Continuous Vandalism.Compwhiz II 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Already protected. Jmlk17 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Karrmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, User keeps attacking me by vandalizing my userpage, so I think that I shall do like most other members, and have my page semiprotected..Karrmann (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected   jj137 ^♠ 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism -- anon. users keep claiming the plant is known for its safety, when the Washington Post had a story yesterday, about how security guards were videotaped sleeping on the job. IP users have reverted multiple times, despite warnings, and do not provide explanation or cite sources. Apologies if this is overkill; I'm getting tired of fixing it, and I'm open to any better suggestions. Josephgrossberg (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined Woody (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for the guidance; it was exactly what I was looking for, since I'm not very experienced in dealing with multiple reverts. Josephgrossberg (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. IP vandalism. Seems pretty obvious to me.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Recently, the article has only been vandalized three times. Does that warrant protection? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.

Dr. Dre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semiprotect for a week or two due to several IP vandals this past week on this biography of living person article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. —Kurykh 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, This is the article that Footballfan190 wanted to semi-protect.Johnny Au (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to Jj137 on this one, as the article was unprotected not that long ago and he was the last protector. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to protect the article yet. It is more Asher196 overusing the undo button than vandalism.   jj137 ^♠ 03:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at further examination, I think there's enough vandalism to semi-protect it for now.   jj137 ^♠ 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.   jj137 ^♠ 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

indefinite full protection User talk of banned user, Vandalizing own talk page..—BoL 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected - I dealt with this guy by another name earlier today. - Philippe | Talk 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• whoo!* —BoL 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Councillors of City of Glen Eira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect is required. Anonymous people who I believe are former sacked Glen Eira councillors have been constantly editing this article and I would only those who have a wikipedia ID to be able to edit Councillors of Glen Eira - because sacked councillors should not have a say in this article as this would be a clear breach of bias. I'm begging for the good of Wikipedia please protect this article from bias from former sacked Glen Eira councillors. --CatonB (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined This amounts to censorship and/or preemptive protection. Engage them on the talk page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary full protection, high level of vandalism since 4 Jan, apparently Mendoza requested that his listeners do this (it's mentioned in some of the edits). Bazzargh (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Revenge of the IP (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

indefinite full protection , Indef blocked user goofing around on talk page, and making personal attacks..Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected indefinitely. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection - high levels of IP/new account vandalism since last protection expired. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect Non-registered and newly registered frequently add original research and not notable information.--The Dominator (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The only positive contributors are registered users, the IP's are only filling the article with trivia.--The Dominator (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)