Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scienceisyourfriend (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 23 August 2008 (→‎{{la|Psionics}}). 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 semi-protection External Links Area Repeated vandalism of links, very persistant, with now random ip's. Scienceisyourfriend (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:88.108.253.208 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, vandalizing talk page.Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 23:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Lunchscale Talk! Contrib! 22:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined since the vandalism is by one IP who has been blocked. If he comes back to vandalise then request a longer block at WP:AIV. If it spreads to other IPs then make a new request here. TerriersFan (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.-- iMatthew T.C. 22:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism; Continuous restoring of text by dynamic IP user after consensus to use a redirect to Frasier. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , This is a Wikipedia request-for page, and this should probably be protected indefinitely to prevent vandalism; such pages like this that are semi-protected are WP:RFA, and WP:RFARB.SchfiftyThree 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now. There hasn't been any vandalism that I can see lately. If we do want to follow the example of RFA, then a consensus should be established on the talk page for semiprotection. -Royalguard11(T) 21:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism .-- iMatthew T.C. 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, It just expired, no need to put it back on yet. -Royalguard11(T) 21:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary move-protection No reason to move this page w/o discussion. David Pro (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected indef. When the crisis has passed, request unprotection here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary cascading semi-protection Vandalism, Requesting semi-protection, IP addresses continue to vandal the page, some even blank the content entirely. Maybe a block until the season is finished like Sept. 21 at the latest. Also if this page is protected can the related page List of Big Brother 10 HouseGuests (U.S.) be protected for the same length as well?.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There hasn't been too much vandalism lately, only a couple the last couple days. Also, cascading protection can only be for full protection at this time (due to software limitations) -Royalguard11(T) 21:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, I would propose protection for this BLP. It is frequently a target of vandalism by unregistered or newly registered users .Suigeneris (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -Royalguard11(T) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Article under heavy attack by vandals..RC-0722 361.0/1 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -Royalguard11(T) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    temporary semi-protection , A user (Samuel Webster) is referring to me as racist and prejudiced on my talk page. He then wrongly used a warning template against me. I have asked him to stop, and hope that temporarily (ie a day) protecting my talk page will help cool him off.BMW(drive) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Sorry, but we don't protect talk pages to help other users cool off. If vandalism continues, take it to WP:AIV. GbT/c 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Already been semi-ed over and over. Every time the semi is over, the IP vandals come back and add unsourced info, and use the article as a playground. .-- iMatthew T.C. 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. --harej 17:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism .-- iMatthew T.C. 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Almost all edits vandalism.Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. The amount of vandalism directly after months of protection is lifted is ridiculous. KrakatoaKatie 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, (article was pointed out on IRC) It seems that this article is biased, and a few vandals have vandalized it... I don't think any more IPs should edit it..≈ MindstormsKid 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agreed, looked at the page with him, it was in serious violation of NPOV. Indefinite may be a bit harsh, but whatever the Admin who deals with this RPP feels is appropriate would suffice I'm sure. Thanks Neuro√Logic 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. We don't deal with content disputes by blocking anon editors from contributing. KrakatoaKatie 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism since protection recently lifted.-- iMatthew T.C. 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. KrakatoaKatie 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protection and/or temporary semi-protection not only has this page been moved back and forth within the past few days, but if you see the edit history of the last 24 hours you will notice it is more than a little hard to follow what is going on with a variety of edits (from the same users) going in all directions. Not to mention the lack of using the sandbox. Lihaas (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protect until Sunday afternoon. Users keep adding spoilers for episodes that haven't aired. Currently semi-protected for this reason due to anons doing it. Ophois (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 20 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. KrakatoaKatie 18:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protect. High level of unsourced information by unregistered editors. I tried to leave a hidden message asking them to stop but they keep readding. I would have asked for temporary protection, but I feel that once the protection is lifted the unsourced contributions will resume. If not at least add semi protection until after the November 11 release date. Sarujo (talk) 18:39, 23 August 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.

    The frequency of unconstructive editing of this page prior to protection may warrant semi-protection, but I do not believe it warrants full protection. Gurch (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The protection request [1] was made in the edit summary by an editor involved in an edit war (later blocked for that edit war) and was purportedly to prevent newly created accounts from editing (even though there wasn't a problem with new account edits) and immediately carried out [2] by an admin in order to stop "newbie problems". The semi protection policy is clear though

    "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."

    There is no reason for this page to be protected.

    NOTE: This request was made earlier [3] but was moved by bot [4] as a fullfilled/denied request even though it was neither fullfilled, denied or commented on. 92.10.109.36 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: KrakatoaKatie 18:07, 23 August 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.

    As per talk page request. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so I don't muck up a highly-transcluded template, I am right in thinking you want the whole contents of that page put into the template? That page isn't multi-purpose or anything? :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want a change identical to the cited diff added. However, simply overwriting the template with a cut-paste of my user subpage should be the exact same thing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done by admin User:Happy-melon (so the bot picks it up). -Royalguard11(T) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism .-- iMatthew T.C. 16:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - KrakatoaKatie 17:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Subject involved in Olympic-related controversy; page has been vandalized by numerous new accounts and IPs especially within the last few days. DanielEng (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected --PeaceNT (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Slow moving vandalism. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - KrakatoaKatie 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Since her entry at the Olympics as a Russian, much of the edits about her is about labelling her a traitor as well as other assorted vandalism.Jay Pegg (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Vandalism seems to have died down. No vandalism today yet. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.-- iMatthew T.C. 12:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Alexf42 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, Weird vandalism only account. Seems to admit socking..Traditional unionist (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected That wasn't the actual The Thunderer, incase anyone begins wondering. Also blanked the page. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Should the talk page actually be deleted and salted? I have no clue, I haven't come across in instance like this[reply]

    Bearcat was involved in an edit war over whether the article should be a redirected to a larger article, or a standalone article, and used his admin powers to "win". There's been no AFD or discussion resulting in consensus for a merge/redirect. If there was a consensus at AFD or talk page for a redirect, and that was reverted, than temporary page protection might be ok. Since Heather Carter has received media attention in reliable sources, it's not slam-dunk case, and it's open to debate about when she'll be worthy of a stand-alone article. Page protection shouldn't be used to win content disputes. --Rob (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I did no such thing as using admin powers to "win". The article did not meet any of Wikipedia's inclusion policies as written: it contained no sources, she doesn't meet the baseline inclusion rule as spelled out at WP:POLITICIAN that a person generally has to be elected to political office to merit an article, and John Caron, the user who created the article and reverted any and all attempts to redirect it, is on the board of the Liberal Party riding association in Carter's riding — which therefore also fails WP:COI. And the person who reverted it after I advised User:johncaron.ca of the WP:3RR rule is also an active Liberal Party member who lives in the Niagara area, so they're also quite unlikely to be a neutral party.
    And I'm not the only person who redirected the article to the merged bio list, either — several other established editors did exactly the same thing. It's also been tagged for speedy deletion in the past, and had the tag removed by User:johncaron.ca (additionally violating the proscription against removing a speedy tag if you're the article's creator). And it's been deleted in the past, too — and then recreated again by none other than User:johncaron.ca.
    And the only discussion anybody involved ever undertook with me made it quite specifically clear that the page's reason for being here was to help Carter win the next election — which fails WP:NOT, specifically, the part about not using Wikipedia to advertise or campaign — and that by attempting to redirect it I was being a slimeball NDP partisan who was trying to prevent her from winning — which fails both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
    Talk page or AFD consensus is not required for a redirect if the article as written does not meet WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. It's not a content dispute — it's simple policy, which is my job as an administrator to enforce. If you think she might merit a standalone article, then feel free to write a revised draft in your own user space that actually meets Wikipedia's sourcing and notability requirements — but the article as it was written at the time simply had no valid claim to being here as a standalone article, as it didn't meet a single one of Wikipedia's inclusion policies.
    And finally, you seem to have missed the part of this very page where it explicitly says that you have to discuss a disputed page protection with the protecting admin first, before you bring the dispute here. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected A redirect is the proper decision as the person is clearly not notable enough for her own article. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this protection should be indefinite or temporary. --Rob (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem with leaving protection in place until the subject has demonstrated sufficient notability as to warrant her own article. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , like the Family Guy article, protected since mid-December, vandal activity appears to have declined.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected I have left full move protection on (this article was hit by Grawp recently). caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.-- iMatthew T.C. 12:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, IP vandalism.-- iMatthew T.C. 12:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. High level of IP unsourced information, most of the edits are made from IPs and don't have many sources, and an IP tried to protect the article by addding a protection template on the article. BlueRed 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Almost all of the recent work on this article has been done by anon IPs. I checked the tables against ESPN's version and all seemed accurate. Without any obvious vandalism taking place, then protecting this article would do more damage than good. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Protected since Christmastime; no recent vandal activity.Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The "News" section had been repeatedly deleted by vandals, who have now managed to secure protection for their efforts by quoting WOTC representatives out of context. The entry is placed in the unfortunate position of being unable to benefit from edits because the majority of the game's fans have not seen firsthand, and thus do not believe, the truth about upcoming changes to the product line. The page should be unprotected ASAP so that fans of the game can use it as a source to see the current state of things, and not protected by a group of snobbish vandals who refuse to accept the truth of things just because they were not present for the evidence. Sadly, the most recent news cannot be confirmed with photographic evidence, or I and others would do so in a heartbeat. Non-disclosure and copyright agreements prevent such definitive confirmation, but a text description should more than suffice. Please unprotect this page at once. I hope this is the right place to request that. Heroscape has a strong fanbase, and they are solely responsible for editing its wiki page. Please allow them to do so. Any innacurracies will self-correct, and have been VERY minor thus far. Many of us have been "fighting" the vandals to assure that the page stays on course. Please remove the protections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.84.86 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected This information cannot be added to the article unless you have reliable sources to back your statements. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Move protection It's easy to deal with IP vandals thinking it should be called "A Hundred Million Suns" despite 2 sources stating the contrary, but it's annoying when the article is moved there and moved back again. There is no need to move it at the current time and thus I think move-protection can be added. SoWhy 10:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Being that all major US news sources confirmed Joe Biden's selection as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, I am asking for semi-protection to deter vandalism.

    • Note, I had removed semi-protection, but I think I may have made a mistake by doing so. There'll be fewer responsible editors around overnight (US time), and perhaps more vandals. I'm going to reprotect it for a short time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=233825740"