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.

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

Temporary full protection dispute, Edit warring, both auto-confirmed and IP users, some BLP issues. Request a short, (3 days or less) full protect to calm things down. Safiel (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

full protection vandalism, This player is currently at the center of a transfer rumor, and despite no contract signings having taken place, this page has been subject to a number of IP edits and registered user edits changing the current status of the player. At present, the player is under contract to his current club until August 6, 2010. Would like to see the protection run until at least that date or until an announcement from the target club (Kansas City Wizards) is issued confirming the acquisition. Jroushkolb (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City Wizards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection vandalism, As with Omar Bravo, this page has been subject to a number of IP and registered user edits attempting to add a player to the roster despite explicit denials. Would like to see protection run until August 6, 2010 or until Wizards announce signing. Jroushkolb (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection dispute, Believe it or not the reverts in lieu of discussion have resumed at the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution article. With the latest being revert war over whether the POV tag is appropriate. Perhaps another short page protect would allow focus to be given to discussion on talk page versus revert war in the article space. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this request. The other editors are constructively editing the article. The only dispute is with SaltyBoatr, who disagrees with the vast majority of the edits made. He has repeatedly attempted to place a POV tag on the article. To fully protect the article is to grant SaltyBoatr a heckler's veto. Please deny his request for full protection. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree. SaltyBoatr has a long history (at least 1-2 years) of requesting page protection for this article as soon as he doesn't get his way in a content dispute. His requests for page protection generally come shortly after other editors reach a consensus to which he disagrees and SaltyBoatr adds the POV tag to the article. Please don't fall for this trick again. The article has been protected for the better part of the past 5 or 6 weeks at SB's request, and now that other editors are resuming work, he wants it protected again. Un-freakin-believable. --Hamitr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

I strongly disagree with this request. I believe that Salty has relentlessly used the Wikipedia system, including various actions such as this to try to POV this article. More specifically this is a topic where the biggest developments of the century (two recent Supreme Court decisions) has occurred in the last two years, and I believe that Salty wishes that the article not be updated to fully reflect these, and locking it up would serve that purpose. A review of recent article history will show that there are no serious "edit wars" going on. The "worst" isn't that bad, a few revisions of a sentence in the lead by both "sides" where consensus first would have been better, and where I think that Salty's edits have been the most questionable, although I did support Salty on removal of one inaccurate (and thus unsourcable) phrase. This article could benefit from more and more organized consensus building on the talk page,and I have been trying to help that happen.

My guess is that this move by Salty at this moment is because work is proceeding on the TALK page and a consensus is developing on the TALK page to update the article to fully reflect these two recent Supreme Court decisions. I feel no ill will towards Salty. We've had some good exchanges on each other's talk pages, and a review of the article talk page would show that he and I have had reasonably good co-operation. But I do feel that what I wrote here describes the actual situation.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined looks like a single user edit war to me. RN 06:01, 21 July 2010 (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.

South Slavic languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Removal of pending changes Semi-protected. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected Removed the PC. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotect. A single editor was editwarring against talk page discussion, was reverted by several different editors, and made personal attacks on the article talk page and in edit summaries. The problem editor was reported (twice) to WP:AN3. Rather than deal with the editwarring editor, an admin decided to lock the page (at the wrong version, naturally). This punishes the readers of wikipedia, who are now getting a unreliably sourced POV, the other editors who were acting in good faith to improve the article, and the project as a whole as now editors cannot make any improvements to this page. It also encourages the editwarring editors behaviour, in effect rewarding them for their uncivil attacks and revert perseverance. The protection should be lifted and if the problem editor inserts the material again without getting consensus first he should be blocked, rather than blocking the page. I have attempted to discuss this with the admin in question, but he has edited my talk page comments without permission, initial refused to respond to my request (simply removing a portion of it) and has been uncivil to another editor who asked him not to edit others comments. Verbal chat 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss this with the admin in question, but he has edited my talk page comments without permission, initial refused to respond to my request (simply removing a portion of it) and has been uncivil to another editor who asked him not to edit others comments.

I'm mildly amused. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not and I've found your responses lacking. You seem to think being an admin is something special. You acted inappropriately. Verbal chat 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I'm not unaccustomed to this. As I'm sure is not unique to me, people who disagree with my actions take offense when I stand by the action that I took. This point never ceases to amaze me; if I thought my action was wrong, I wouldn't have done it in the first place. Unless new evidence is presented -- and none is presented here -- I'm not sure why you'd think I would change my mind just because -- well -- you say so. As I and others have suggested, this scenario (and most others) could have been dealt with in a multitude of ways. Similarly, there are hundreds of active admins capable of doing these actions. You will find some admins, like, say, myself, who will act in a way contrary to what you want. Instead of getting offended when the original admin -- surprise -- does not disagree with himself, you should go to a noticeboard like this one (if you feel that strongly about your position). As I note below, RegentsPark's action is highly unusual, as we generally stay with the version at the point of protection (save BLP, copyright, etc.), but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Why? Because his position on reverting the article is, in the end, just as appropriate as my position not to. Unfortunately, I gather from your remarks here, and elsewhere, that you see RegentPark's move as confirmation that my action was wrong or otherwise inappropriate. -- tariqabjotu 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined I've removed the contentious material from the article since it is better to exclude controversial information pending discussion than to include it. It can easily be added back if there is consensus to do so. Seems to me that the protection was warranted and should continue. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a compromise I can live with. Verbal chat 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a highly unusual action -- reverting during protection -- but I'm not going to drag you through the street over it. -- tariqabjotu 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Current requests for 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

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

Semi-protection. edit war on going over inclusion of noynoyaquino.ph website in violation of WP:FORUM. see [this link] some anons have been warned for 3rr, one of whom is insisting on putting it in despite calls for discussion in talk page. I have explained emphasis on seeking consensus, but anons are determined to do it the otherway around just because it was inserted days ago. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. RN 05:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

LCL AND FCL CONTAINERS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

create-protection, Deleted 3 times already, CSD'ed for a 4th right now. Mauler90 _talk 04:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It was protected as I filed this request so please disregard. Mauler90 _talk 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, blp violations by IP hopper . Falcon8765 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done. for 2 days by User:DMacks RN 05:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

St. Francis (NY) Terriers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite full protection, Much work went into the page, would be nice if changes first went through talk. El Mayimbe (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined, Wikipeia is a wiki. There's a notice under the save button that says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This is not what protection is for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection - vandalism. Connormah^talk 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Man on the Moon II: The Legend of Mr. Rager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 month long semi protection History of protection and vandalism has continued. Red Flag on the Right Side 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Pending changes not going to well. Connormah^talk 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Fairy Tail episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP editor from El Salvador repeatedly adding in false air dates and episode titles. Also did the same thing at List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 8) and has also been repeatedly posting a nonsense statement on the latter's talk page. —Farix (t | c) 01:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined, 1 a ay isn't that bad and there seem to be some constructive IP edits HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahindra World City, New Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection dispute, Someone is trying to delete the entire content of this page rather than improving the page. I wish to protect the page from it. Will take sometime for me to improve the article. Coolguyche17 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I left a message on YellowMonkey's talk page. From his edit summaries he seems to think that content is spam; this is a minor prolonged revert war. Hopefully people can come to some kind of agreement here then simply rollbacking each other. RN 02:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nicki Minaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite semi-protection IP users who insist adding a song as a single that was never officially released. Candyo32 02:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection for another couple or three days, to make the banned user "Light current" find something else to do for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protection - Pending changes not working to the desired effect - please restore semi. Thanks. Connormah^talk 23:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected Restored indefinite semi-protection. Steady vandalism. Little for pending changes to accept. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection dispute, User updates regarding the ongoing Sherrod racism scandal; lots of misinformation being entered, potential for vandalism high.

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. We do not preemptively protect pages. The few edits so far appear to good-faith, sourced edits. If an increase in improper edits is observed, you may resubmit the request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism done today by both IP and registered users . ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined Request was valid at the time, but this appears to have been a short-term attack that has passed. Earlier user has been blocked. Please re-report if vandalism resumes. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

62nd Primetime Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, ip's adding comments and remarks on NBC decision to not show Conan O'Brien's category at the Emmys and other remarks about the nominees. Polo200 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, ip's adding positions which fail to match with the source provided. Mister sparky (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  20:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Recent (and long term) IP disruption. Connormah^talk 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. I'm tired of reading about BLP vandalism with my morning coffee, and this is such a high-profile target. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this was getting a bit out of hand. Connormah^talk 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection dispute, disruptive editing by ip address. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. GedUK  19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Danny Wilson (Scottish footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, close season transfer speculation over a whole range of IPs.Monkeymanman (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator John. GedUK  19:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, recent spate of vandalism from IPs and new users. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined Article appears to be a part of the pending changes trial. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Temporary long-term semi-protection - Repeated IP vandalism. Examples here, here, here and here. This page is often the subject of such vandalism, so a length term of protection would be ideal. — Hunter Kahn 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Recently it's not very high, but seems like a good candidate for pending changes. GedUK  19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Giovani dos Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Repeated vandalism, from different IP's, but most likely the same person. Bocafan76 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Beşiktaş J.K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi protection vandalism, one week, repeated uncited transfer claims. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Pending Changes Indefinite. A high level of IP vandalism, but also a high level of good IP edits. Was on the Pending Changes list and was working well, but it expired. KelleyCook (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Unprotect. Around two years ago I became inactive on Wikipedia. I discovered that somebody kept vandalizing my page as a prank. I therefore requested an admin to protect the page. Now I'd like to edit my userpage again, so I am requesting to unprotect. --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unprotected –xeno^talk 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Indefinite semi-protection. A dynamic IP in the 83.9.xxx.xxx range (e.g., 83.9.165.230, 83.9.141.24, 83.9.166.26, 83.9.165.101. 83.9.168.86, 83.9.146.124, 83.9.136.105, etc.) persistently keeps deleting sourced content from the article lede and inserting inappropriate sources, like the pro-Limonov kasparov.ru and adds other unsourced partisan POV into the lede of this article, and never bothers to attempt discussion with the other editors.

The IP's already one-sidedly reverted myself multiple times, as well as users Hibernian [1], Narking [2], and others (see history [3]). He has been asked to adhere to WP policy in edit summaries [4], [5] and on the talk page [6], but he prefers to ignore those requests and keep reverting like mad on what's become a nearly daily basis. Admin Alex Bakharev semi-protected the article for several days on 12 July [7], but once protection expired he came right back and reverted everything wholesale once more [8], so it seems best to semi-protect this controversial article either long-term or indefinitely.

Since the modus operandi demonstrated here is simply to ignore all of his opponents, I think that a block for long-term edit warring might also be warranted. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm no good at range blocks, you might want to raise that at ANI. GedUK  18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)