Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.139.76.64 (talk) at 07:37, 18 November 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.

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --slakr\ talk / 07:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Target of tenditious editing by User:AndreaMimi, who has now been blocked for it, and has returned to edit from a variety of IP addresses..Mayalld (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Frequent IP vandalism; false death claims; false claims of sexual activities in violation of BLP; my understanding is that he has encouraged viewers of his web show to vandalise the article. Semi-protection for as long as possible would be great. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. It is a doppelganger account of mine, therefore giving no reason for others to edit it. MathCool10 (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of forever, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lol @ "after forever". Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefenite semi-protection - Semi protect indefenitely, Major IP vandals target, vandalized many times almost everyday. Causing edit wars done by innocents editors (new wikipedia users) who use IP's in their previous edits who edits like a blog, without thinking that this is wiki exclusively for encyclopedia only and no more. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi protection Most edits are IP vandalism. JNW (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection edit war. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I've warned the two users. Further edit warring will result in blocks. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi protection Vandalism, Requesting temporary semi-protection: this page has been the target of heavy vandalism from several IPs over the past few days. A short period of protection may be appropriate..Terraxos (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, I want to request semi-protection for MPI. There is revert war on that page spanning 16 edits between 3 of us reverting edits by anonymous spammer or new account spamming same thing. Just check out History page. Thank you..Melmann(talk) 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. لennavecia 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full-protectionRepeated attack from Single purpose accounts making WP:BLP violations on highly visible public figure (warnings given by multiple users to spa here[1][2][3][4][5])Zuppeandsalad (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I'll handle this one. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection This article seems to be attracting attention from unregistered users who edit over or rv any attempts to improve, footnote or even properly format this article. I am asking for protection to the extent that only registered users can edit that article for a period of six months. Hopefully, they will loose interest and it can be cleaned up during that time. Thank you CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection it is almost impossible for this article to improve, as there are many IPs going through every day either adding poor prose, original research, or pure vandalism (I found two sections which were completely vandalized, and I believe were left that way for a while). I don't think that in its current situation, it can improve. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined As long as edits aren't solely vandalism this is ok. Some people just aren't gifted writers, and they have good intentions. I believe that this is the only fair way to leave it. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 02:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection article history in the last few days is full of IP vandalism. —Snigbrook 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 01:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, heavy vandalism by different IP's. Ollie Fury Contribs 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 01:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection: AfD closed 3 days ago, but an editor insists on continually injecting his "last word" into it (that last word being that Wikipedia is full of "bureacratic idiocy"). Continues to revert-war over it, saying that he needs to "get a glean of satisfaction" and that "I will have the last word even if it kills me." Not that I want to feed the troll, but this needs to stop & isn't really enough to justify a user block. A closed AfD should only be modified by an admin anyway, and protection wouldn't prevent that. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator indef by Skier Dude.. If such a situation should occur in the future, warn the user so that they may be blocked if they continue, negating the need for protection. لennavecia 01:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Article is frequently vandalized by IP users. JaredInsanity (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Semi three months. The problem seems to have started this fall, so indefinite protection might be overkill. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect indefenitely - Vandalized 3 times done by Slemcal1 who is currently blocked, he also vandalized my talkpage three times. Starczamora also tried to vandalized it once. Wynchard Bloom (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. indefinitely by Hersfold —EncMstr (talk) 07:20, 18 November 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:Dayewalker (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Unprotection. I would like to leave a message for the user and I'm unable to do so. Vandalism has passed and unnecessarily protecting user pages is against WP:PROTECT -81.139.76.64 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    COMMENT - Please do not unprotect my page without my consent, I have an IP stalker as you can tell from here [6]. If this IP needs to talk something over with me, they can either register an account, or do so at the relevant talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected It's pretty obvious that there be some stalkifying going on, and requester's use of the WP:PROTECT shortcut makes this request doubly suspicious. --slakr\ talk / 07:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. It's becoming increasingly apparently to me that everyone assume the worst out of people with IP addresses. -81.139.76.64 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, This article was protected because there was a lack of information at the time. Since then article has been re-created under a different name (Celebrity Big Brother UK (2009). To fit in with the other related articles it should be called "Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK)", (See Celebrity Big Brother 2001 (UK),Celebrity Big Brother 2002 (UK),Celebrity Big Brother 2005 (UK),Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK) and Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK)) It can then be moved the page I am requesting unprotection for.12bigbrother12 07:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

    Note: Do you have consensus for this? That article doesn't look too expansive. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unprotection , Why can't the article just be move-protected instead of semi-protected?.SchfiftyThree (talk!) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Grawp has an infinite amount of IPs at his disposal. Unprotecting that will just lead to protection a few hours later. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I opened this page before WP went down for me. And Unprotected without seeing this message once it came back up and I returned to this tab. Regardless, we don't preemptively protect pages, last I checked, and there's no vandalism in the history other than page moves. لennavecia 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The second Grawp catches a whiff of that page being unprotected he'll hit it hard, but I guess this way is ok. :) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 07:17, 18 November 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

    Full protection major edit war. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined User who seems to be violating consensus has been warned for 3RR. If he continues, he will be blocked. No justification to lock the article to everyone else. لennavecia 01:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Low-usage talk page, subject to BLP abuse by multiple IP editors (or one, using multiple IPs). Article already protected. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. لennavecia 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Please remove full protection; dispute has been resolved. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected لennavecia 03:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Framing Hanley

    Framing Hanley was deleted and protected from being remade due to failing WP:MUSIC but it now has chart recognition.--WhereAmI (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected and restored. لennavecia 03:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Page Unprotection

    Hi Could You Please Unprotect Axion Estin Foundation. I want to create this article for a new user using a more neutral point of view on the subject.Please Leave a Message on My Talk with a response Thanks! CelesJalee (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Vandalism, This person will not stop adding text to the page that has no relevance.mrdempsey 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave the vandal a final warning on his talk page. Numerous edits, same thing, edit warring and a previous warning. I hope that helps. PS: I also gave him a warning in Spanish.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined As noted by Yachtsman, this is a matter of dealing with the problem user with warnings and blocks. No justification for protection. لennavecia 22:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protectionVandalism This article on this particular subject seems to attract a great deal of vandalism from all quarters (from Egyptphiles to racists). It got so bad after I made vandalism changes, I added it on my watch list after making various revisions and edits. I would ask protection to the extent that only registered users can edit that article for a period of six months. Hopefully, it can be cleaned up during that time. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator one week by Camaron.. لennavecia 21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also reverted some unfixed vandalism, it was pretty clear harm was being done to the article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it was, some of the worst vandalism I have seen on this site. Well done on the edits, and thanks again.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Someone is threatining me and vandilisizing this page..Irunongames (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Seems to be just a single IP causing the issue at present. If it continues warn him/her again, and if necessary report to WP:AIV. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, As soon as temporary protection was removed, IP address vandalised it 5 times. I'm thinking a longer protection this time..DJ MeXsTa (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only one IP that has been blocked, so re-protection is not necessary at this time. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection - this article has been abused almost non-stop for the past 9 months, and only by IPs. The actual identities of most of the editors are known to be secondary school students in the region, and will most likely do a much more vandalism than usual (more than was done to incur it's protection recently) over the 2+ month school holidays that have started in New Zealand. Protection until Feb '09 or at least the new year is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thank The Lord Wiki14:07 (talk • contribs) November 17, 2008 (UTC)

    Declined There were two days of heavy vandalism. The article was protected for an appropriate amount of time. The only edit since was made by you. لennavecia 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    dispute protection - for about a week, due what is being termed a "nasty edit-war brewing". Calmer heads will prevail in discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected the wrong version for one week. لennavecia 18:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection due to developing insider trading scandal. Had to revert an NPOV vio. Willking1979 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined History indicates apparently very few reverts. IP talk pages are redlinks, which suggests appropriate editing. I don't think there is sufficient disruption to warrant protection at this time. لennavecia 18:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect IP user constantly adds unsourced, non-NPOV material to article. Willking1979 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It's one user. Warn with escalating warnings. Currently, you've given him three level-one warnings today. If he persists, he will be blocked. There's no justification for page protection. لennavecia 18:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protection vandalism, the article constantly vandalism by IP adresses who put in all kind on nosense and opinions, like 4 seasons instead 2, calling an episode stupid and making YouTubePoop references. Look at the page history. Elbutler (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. لennavecia 18:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection Dispute, Constant edit wars between three members, each of whom keep reverting and saying "Reverting vandalism" or something along those lines. .Undead Warrior (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. DMacks (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Dispute, there is an edit war. one use keeps deleting reliable sources because they don't fit with his own opinion..Berg Drop a Line ޗ pls 15:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I support user Tjbergsma's request for full protection of this article. However, as his own activities marked the commencement of the war, the locked version should be that which existed prior to his first edits. PiCo (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for 3 days. Please use this time to discuss any changes on the article talk page and refrain from edit warring.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect lots of vandalisim by the same vandals that target the burger article. --80.44.254.157 (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=252529075"