Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graphitesmoothie (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 31 January 2008 (→‎Current requests for protection: Adding Landmaster to requests for protection.). 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. .

    semi-protect. There is a large amount of vandalism right now originating from a gamefaqs board. graphitesmoothie (talk | contributions) 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, This is a political group linked to the British National Party, it is expected that it will come under heavy attack from its opponents 20:14, 31 January 2008 {[User: ChrisLhill]}

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. and I dont know if you meant it but that is a red-link.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, There has been too much vandalism on his page recently, which took me a long time to remove and correct. Full protection might be able to put a stop to this.--EclipseSSD (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, An edit war has been started on the page..SMS Talk 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, The vandalism the last week by anon IPs has been heavier than usual. It must be assigned to some junior high school..Mlouns (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -MBK004 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 3 near-identical anon IPs hitting this in the last hour with identical vandalisms. This makes it hard to wait for each to get to the final warning and then block. Even a 1 week temp block would help here. Mlouns (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see from the page history there were only two distinct IPs vandalizing within the previous 24 hours. That is far below the threshold where protection is necessary. -MBK004 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - This article is a frequent, persistent target of IP vandals, often new and one-time vandals. See the article history for plenty of examples. Torc2 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -MBK004 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection High-visible template, This template is used in all namespaces, very frequently. It could cause havoc if it was vandalised.Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected - yeah, I'll buy that argument. - Philippe | Talk 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Article is the target of incessant commercial linkspam from rotating IPs, which has picked up in the last few days. No communication has been successful. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - Philippe | Talk 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - a fair amount of vandalism and edit warring by IP addresses as been happening over the past week or so. Could do with a break to let things calm down. ScarianCall me Pat 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Lots of IP vandalism lately.Gromlakh (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Vandalism, several frequent and anonymous vandals over the last few months. Bassgoonist T C 15:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. TalkIslander 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi protection Vandalism, Continued vandalism after expiry of last protection..скоморохъ ѧ 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. TalkIslander 16:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , In my userspace - no need for an IP or new user to edit this template, which is effectively a humorous template about my WikiProject memberships..Solumeiras (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected TalkIslander 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protect. High level of IP vandalism. 71.103.29.196 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Most vandalism seems to be from one IP, who is now blocked. TalkIslander 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , No need for people to mess with this redirect.Solumeiras (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" says the protection policy. Kusma (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Last night every 5-10 minuets & a few this morning semi-protect till off main page to avoid the drive-bys.Nate1481( t/c) 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jmlk17 11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    95 edits & only 10 not vandal or revert isn't extreme? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite normal by Main Page FA standards. Kusma (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote comes from a guideline not a policy, and from reading the guide it refers to the level of vandalism is extreme. I dissagree with the guideline but that another matter, as if you log in and spend 1/2 your day reverting edits you get to the point where you glance & possibly label good edits as vandalism, which is less welcoming? Warning regular contributors who helped build a featured article, before it goes on the main page to be destroyed would be polite too. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protect until edit war is over. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:38, 30 January 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.

    User talk:70.109.223.188 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    can i edit my talk page please?--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Kusma (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been almost two years wince Jimmy Wales swung the ban hammer on this article, and almost one year since he invited the community to revisit it. If the page is going to remain verboten, its protection should probably develop an articulated reason (At present, the reason is, "deprecating protected titles", which isn't a reason under the new protection regime--if I understand that correctly.)

    01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Brian Peppers" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)

    Branden (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The current protection summary has a link to WP:PT which contains the relevant notice that the article has been recreated many times but shouldn't, and the link to WP:DRV for those who really want to try discussing this. What kind of protection summary would you like? Kusma (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at WP:PT, I see no mention of the page. There's a link to a list of protected titles for this month, but the Peppers article is not mentioned there. Could you be more specific? Branden (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Page protected for a while, hopefully protection no longer necessary..Solumeiras (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected but I guess we'll have this back on protection in a couple of weeks. Kusma (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been protected long enough and there is new probation policy. See relevant discussion here. --> Talk:Quackwatch#Notice Quack Guru 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant 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.

    Per request here. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Final reversion by Lawrence Cohen on 22 January was minutes before page was protected during edit war. Eschoir returned from 24 hour block for edit warring that morning and straightaway started edit war again. This time he recruited Lawrence Cohen from WP:RFAR. As shown on talk page final revert by Lawrence Cohen is not supported by consensus or by Wikipedia policy. Please restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - see this for more information why. east.718 at 22:20, January 25, 2008

    In the article on al-Qaeda: I'd like to request that a separate level-2 heading be created to discuss the essential issue of al-Qaeda's numbers. Nowhere in the article, as currently protected, is there a systematic discussion of the number of operatives in the organization. From the text of the article as it currently stands, al-Qaeda could include tens of millions of operatives, or less than fifty. This needless, dangerous ambiguity to the article ought to be addressed and corrected forthwith. --TallulahBelle (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It needs to be addressed by editors on the talk page then. After consensus has been achieved, then you request an edit. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Rodimus The F22 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    I'd like to request that someone remove the M1 Abrams message at the top, WP:DENY. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It doesn't have anything to do with DENY from what I can see. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A rather unorthodox request. An arbitrator has protected this page, but left a conditional in her edit summary. For details, see here. The current "pp-dispute" tag at the top of the talk page tells people to come here to request unprotection. What I would like is for an uninvolved administrator to change that link (you may need to substitute the template) to point to User talk:FloNight#Agreement regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision instead. This will allow any uninvolved editors passing by, and unaware of the situation, to go to the right place to ask for page unprotection. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this is the right place for this request, but nowhere else seems as appropriate. I'd like to request that Medicine Show be (re?)created as a redirect to Medicine show, but not (necessarily) unprotected. Note also the existence of Medicine Show (album). I found the SALT tag when looking for the Big Audio Dynamite single, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Mr.Z-man 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    This game has been released in Japan now, please see the talk page for more info. Addit (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected -- lucasbfr talk 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    semi-protection - Can someone please protect my talk page for just a day or so from anon edits so I can log on at least once without receiving an offensive message from an anon IP who's been harassing me? Hopefully if my talk page is protected they'll just move on. Thanks! Somno (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined In the past week, it's only been one IP address editing your page - you should request dealing with it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for considering it anyway. I have already taken it to Wikiquette alerts; I just thought this might help me while waiting for a response from there. Somno (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive 2 (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

    full protection , Archive - should never need to be edited..Solumeiras (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - no need to make it hard for people who use their m:Right to vanish to edit this page when it becomes necessary. Kusma (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection , +expiry 1 week - Needs full protection from persistent vandals.Solumeiras (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't even want to semi-protect this, as there was a lot of good-faith IP activity recently. Kusma (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection, requested due to several recent incidents of vandalism.Aparhizi (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Frequent silly and vulgar vandalism during January - nearly all reversions are for undoing vandalism. .Wisdom89 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Kusma (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Most of the reversions are due to vandalism, and cluebot has been particularly active in identifying and reverting incessant vandalism. Request semi-protect, perhaps into february. .Wisdom89 (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Kusma (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Due to subject and content, article has seen a barrage of recent vandalism. Semi-protection might be in order. .Wisdom89 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Kusma (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, January is seeing some heavy vandalism due to the controversial nature of the subject. Requesting a semi-protected page to see if it alleviates the problem.Wisdom89 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Kusma (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Page protected for a while, hopefully protection is no longer necessary..Solumeiras (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, very unlikely that protection is no longer necessary, see the last time it was tried. Kusma (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Page protected for too long, should be safe to unprotect now..Solumeiras (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Kusma (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Page protected for far too long, should be unprotected for now because the subject is a current event and that the article's been protected for a while anyway..Solumeiras (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - enough vandalism and problems even under semiprotection, no urgent need for more edits to the page. Kusma (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Dispute, IP edit warring.- ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mainly registered users it seems, with only a random few IPs over the last week. Jmlk17 09:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection requested due to several recent incidents of vandalism over the last few days, some major. -Kris Schnee (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 09:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Official line-up of this years fest not due until Feb 6. Daily multiple rumors/spurious anonymous edits..Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Keilana|Parlez ici 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. A week would have been better. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, my math is horrible. For some reason I saw that as Feb. 2. I'll go change it. :/ Keilana|Parlez ici 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That should do the trick. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=188228237"