Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.95.139.248 (talk) at 21:26, 15 September 2008 (→‎Current requests for unprotection). 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. It'd be nice to apply this for the whole NFL season, but I dunno if that is possible. Eli attracts a lot of IP vandalism, both good and bad. Feels like there is constant reverting thanks to anon. users. Semi-protect to where only registered users can edit. Endlessdan and his problem 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Dispute, There is an edit war occurring. I am providing a WP:3O and would like FPP for the time being until the parties come to a new consensus for the contentious edit..Fr33kmantalk APW 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    permanent semi-protection. From WP:SEMI, "Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are: Subject to heavy and persistent vandalism.". From the article's history, you can see it is a ceaseless stream of IP vandalism and poster child candidate for such protection. While vandal edits are usually quickly reverted, the risk for missed edits which have deliberately introduced false information into the article is high. WP editors' efforts are better spent improving the project, instead of babysitting a perennial target. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't feel permanent semi protection is called for just yet. Let's see what happens in two months time. TalkIslander 20:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Unresonable edit removing.Mojtaba Cazi (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Objection: Mojtaba Cazi has actually violated the 3RR rule trying to put his blog links in the article. He has been warned about his edits multiple times by different editors today. There's no reason to protect this page. -- Atamachat 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Some people keep adding unsourced songs and other information..TheLeftorium 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, as the anonymous users continue to vandalize the page, even when the page has been semi-protected. Also please advise on possible steps to block anonymous vandal. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Note that by definition, anonymous editors cannot edit semi protected pages. If one specific IP causes problems, go to WP:AIV. TalkIslander 20:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect to cool down on the vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection : heavy vandalism, almost everyday. Thanks. DocteurCosmos (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, Blocked user abusing talk page.Mayalld (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done GbT/c 17:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Another one being hit by the Disney vandal and some other random IPs who keep reverting it to a much earlier version; current version is the result of an AfD and the only reason it was kept..-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. TalkIslander 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full-Protection : Edit warring: I added in the talk page as well as a html comment inviting the anonymous IP user for a discussion. This invitation was ignored, and he/she proceeded to reinsert the highly disputed POV without commenting, as what he/she has been persistently doing during the last week or so. This user uses different IP addresses for his/her edits so I am not sure if blocking would work--pyl (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High-risk template and some IP vandalism. However, please do not full-protect, "After all, this is a wiki". Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. TalkIslander 21:00, 15 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.

    Talk:Track Palin (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    There has been no edit warring or vandalism, not even one incident. Another editor writes here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FTalk%3ATrack_Palin&diff=238487411&oldid=238310721 which essentially says that the situation isn't fair, in part, because "there is no way to get a delete or keep consensus". There is an intense hatred of the Palin family by about 40% of the population so this distorts Wikipedia. So ending page protection would allow the talk page suggestions to move to the article page, would allow people to improve the article for a few days, and then would allow people to advocate deletion. I have nothing against a fair deletion debate but page protecting it when there is no vandalism or edit warring is not right. Note: I am neither hate or am a fan of Mr. Palin. 903M (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Talk:Track Palin is not protected. You must be asking about the full protection of the redirect from Track Palin to Sarah Palin, which prevents creating a separate article on Track Palin. Those concerned with this point can comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Track Palin, or propose unprotection at WP:ANI. In that MfD debate several people have suggested that a draft article on Track Palin could be created in user space, for review. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove semi-protect. The change made on 20:13, 27 May 2008 removed critical information, and replaced it with the forward link. I would like to revert the change. WH Coordinator (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OBJECTION: The person (WH Coordinator (talk · contribs)) requesting this removal is currently spamming Wikipedia with pyramid-scheme-related nonsense. I recommend deleting all the articles/redirects added by this user (such as 50kamonth.com, InnerCircle, Beach Bum From Hawaii, Ty Coughlin, etc... and salting it. Reswobslc (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to Objection: I am actually trying to do the opposite. The article exposes the pyramid-spam. I have created those links because those were the names under which RFS is marketed, and they would help locating the article. See my talk page for more on this subject.WH Coordinator (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The semi-protection was made after an edit of me was reverted without much explanation or discussion (semiprotection was meaningless anyway since I've been an editor since 2004) and I'm quite sure that WHC's did not intend to promote this pyramid scheme. This kind of edit disputes is not what semi-protection is meant for. Han-Kwang (t) 19:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless that account is your sockpuppet, how can you be "sure" that his intent isn't to promote a scam when this brand new account has only 40 edits, all related to promoting pyramid schemes? Coincidentally, you happen to have authored a pyramid scheme article yourself. See WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not here for the promotion of get rich quick schemes. Reswobslc (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reswobslc, what are you talking about? Would you just read the article that you are referring to? (it's really short) it actually warns people against the scam. That's why we want to bring it back. Your actions actually protect the scam. As for me being a sockpuppet for Hankwang, I really don't see how that would help your cause. You are not responding to either one of our arguments in the discussion. On which, by the way, it is very interesting, you concede that the article is valid, but then you say it shouldn't be there because "We don't need another article...". So which one is it Reswobslc? Scam-promo, or "We don't need another article..."? WH Coordinator (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reswobslc, this is not the place to discuss my hidden intentions. See Talk:Reverse funnel system for that. The question is whether this semi-protect is justified. The answer is no, because (a) It won't help against my edits and (b) semi-protection is not suitable here per WP:SEMI (3 edits is not persistent abuse, but SP here is settling a content dispute which is expressly disallowed). Han-Kwang (t) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I concur with Reswobslc, this is effectively spam, although I'm unsure if it is intentionally so. The version with the article is superficially respectable but (1) Beyond describing it as a "Pyramid Scheme" it is unduly positive about the subject (2) The "references" all lead to articles that promote this or other pyramid schemes. CIreland (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CIreland, can you recommend any changes on the discussion page that would make the article acceptable for publication?WH Coordinator (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove protection of this template. The number of people editing Sarah Palin-related pages has now dropped considerably; and, with this template's remaining protected, current requests for administrators to update its content are being ignored.   Justmeherenow (  ) 13:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is on the main page. There has been some vandalism, however, not persistent and not at a level that should warrant any kind of protection. Article was recently semi-protected, and I request that it be fully unprotected, and if vandalism becomes unmanagable, protection should be considered only then. __meco (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ===

    Good articleWikipedia:Requests for page protection has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
    On this day... Wikipedia milestones
    DateProcessResult
    March 1, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
    April 9, 2014Good article nomineeListed
    April 25, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
    May 6, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
    March 18, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
    On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 23, 2018.
    Current status: Good article

    =

    Okay, does anyone on Wikipedia have any connection with the entertainment media? Because it sounds like there is. I think that the reason someone put a protection on the Miley Cyrus discussion page is because I posted a link to an article that could prove that it wasn't Miley in those racy internet photos. The people in the entertainment media want to be able to pick on her for those pictures and if it gets out that the photos are fake, they won't be able to use it against her without looking stupid. There is something going on here. An you people need to realize that. 72.95.139.248 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Temporary Semi-protection : Central figure in recent financial collapse, already has high rate of IP vandalism in the last few days. Potential BLP issues - he's the CEO of Lehman Brothers. Orpheus (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Satori Son 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This talk page was semi-protected in contravention of Wikipedia policy and needs to be unprotected immediately. 122.105.145.188 (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note for Dbachmann. In the meantime, if you have an important word you want to get to him, why not write it on your own Talk page and then leave a pointer to your comment here on the noticeboard. (Your talk page is currently blank). EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An anon complaining about violation of Wikipedia policy? 122.105.145.188, if you want to talk to me, just use your account. Thanks for not feeding the trolls, --dab (𒁳) 05:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected. IP can sign up if he or she wants really to leave a message at that talk page. Lupo 11:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    now unprotected by concerned citizen AuburnPilot (talk · contribs), who confesses I happily ensure those admins who've been here for so long they believe they are above policy, actually follow policy, yes that's me. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection An anonymous user continues to vandalize the article. I have accepted the good of his contributions but he/she continues to vandalize the page, completely reverting my edits, including these supported by many sources. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — page hasn't been edited in five months. Are you sure you have the right page title? Stifle (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the correct link is National Alliance (Italy). --Checco (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection : could be very useful. DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. TalkIslander 11:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this. Nearly only vandalisms... DocteurCosmos (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, suprisingly enough, review the article history before making my decision - there is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. TalkIslander 12:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, as you like. DocteurCosmos (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Vandalism only edits, all attempting to insert non-notable into article. JNW (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — content dispute and insufficiently disruptive to justify protection. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Wikipedia administrator, IP vandalism warning through admin profile. ApprenticeFan (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, no vandalism since yesterday. I should note his talk page has recently been semi-protected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection : heavy vandalism, almost everyday. Thanks. DocteurCosmos (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Edit-warring. Anonymous IPs were used in the last week or so to persistently adding a highly disputed POV and this POV has been reverted.--pyl (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — semi-protection may not be used to deal with edit warring. If you would like the page to be fully protected, please relist. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, The Disney vandal is causing problems on this page again, continuing to try to revert it to an earlier, bad version before some much needed recent clean up and sourcing. IP blocks are not working, he just gets a new one every day, and has already made three registered sock accounts..-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Already protected. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, more vandalism since unprotection yesterday. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of a fortnight, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Edit-warring by a number of IPs and new users. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined — semi-protection may not be used to deal with edit warring. If you would like the page to be fully protected, please relist. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protect, persistent edit-warring by tendentious SPA's and meatpuppet accounts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Edit war seems to have stopped for now. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection or Full-protection. I can't decide whether it's one continuous edit war or persistent vandalism. Please look at page history. «JavierMC»|Talk 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. It's a user trying to add commentary on the methodology for coming up with the list, and another user quite properly reverting it. I've left the former user a note suggesting he discuss the issue on the talk page. Protection not needed for now. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    two-week semi-protection Edit-warring. Anonymous IPs and throw-away accounts constantly attempting to add red-link to Britney Spears Sixth Album, an album which has been deleted by multiple deletion discussions(such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Spears' 6th Studio Album and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Spears Sixth Album) and is being chronically recreated in multiple guises.Kww (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the new album has now been announced and an article that is here to stay I guess that this is unnecessary. --AmaltheaTalk 10:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Protection not necessary, as discussed. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Burhan Ahmed 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    Declined. All but one of the edits in the last fortnight have come from you. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection for 2 weeks. Edit war and high IP vandalism. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. TalkIslander 11:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. «JavierMC»|Talk 08:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 09:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism, Vandalism from various IPs.Closedmouth (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 09:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=238669129"