Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alekboyd (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 10 February 2009 (→Current 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.

    Temporary semi-protection Many edits against policy.--Alekboyd (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High leve of vandalism the last days - mainly by anon IPs. A lot more than the weeks before since release date. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Frequent vandalism. Entire sections are going missing in the mess. Serendipodous 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - Repeated vandalism and addition of unsourced content by unregistered users.-5- (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Upcoming release. Many edits against policy. Cheers, JakeDHS07 20:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High level of vandalism recently. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi-protection --Every time protection is lifted it's more of the same vandalism --Teancum (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, We are trying to push Alprazolam to GA status, and as stated on the review page, vandals are adding content that might hinder us from getting it to GA status. Can we please semi protect until we get a final answer on the GA review page? Thanks..Cssiitcic (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi-protection. Ongoing, steady IP vandalism. No one IP editor stands out but the history of this article is a mess and unusable. Blatant vandalism and inaccuracies are going to be missed even by all the watchlisters. Previous RFPP have come and gone and the level of vandalism has not abated. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Kelly hi! 17:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Twice has been used by User:Wanless Services or his apparent socks to spamvertize their company. Request that we salt it. Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Page creator (and sock) have been indef blocked by another admin.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. High level of IP vandalism for years. Just look at the article history. WAT (talk • contributions) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. This should get the current wave to die down; I'll watchlist it to help with future cleanup.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Yes, I realize it's a discussion page and everyone is welcome to contribute, but someone has been using IP socks in an attempt to vote stack. One of them even tried closing the afd as delete. -- Scorpion0422 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The point is: unregistered users are allowed to participate in an AfD (although their opinions may be discarded by the closing admin), and not all comments of unregistered users are vandalism/spamming; so I'm loath to protect that page. Let's see if other admins see it differently. Lectonar (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined We can't protect an AfD like this versus anonymous contributors, because that goes against our core tenents. It can be annoying, I'd imagine, but it goes with the territory unfortunately. rootology (C)(T) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (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.

    So some people vandalized it after the Super Bowl. So guess what? I've created this page on a subpage and now I would really appreciate it if an admin would unlock it and move my subpage to the mainspace. Showtime2009 (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Ask the protecting admin, MZMcBride (talk · contribs), first please. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Done by MZMcBride. Tan | 39 22:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to edit this page so admin plase unlock it.I'm probably not the only one who would like to edit this page.I don't know why it has been protected or if it has been target for some people to vandalize.Picard99 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009

    Upload file

    Resolved

    I am unable to upload files due to page protection????!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly the source file is the issue. (I reduced this http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009_swimsuit/more/cover.html ) for inclusion at Raphael Mazzucco and Bar Rafaeli.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I had been uploading under a one word file name that the ocmputer did not like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:01, 10 February 2009 (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 vandalism, Lots of IP vandalism recently. Kkmurray (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 14:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This page will always be a victim of vandalism from people of the anime who do not like the film's changes. Killa Koz (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Let's assume that it won't be, shall we? ;-) SoWhy 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Page finally stabilized after long debate, until recent flurry of unregistered users tried to revert back. Ledboots (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Floridian06 (talk · contribs) is refusing to accept the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Front desk to redirect Front desk and Front Desk to Receptionist, and has recently recreated a version of the article at Front Desk. On the suggestion of the closing admin, I'm requesting protection for the redirects. – The Parting Glass 13:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, if it's only one user, then warn them for it and/or report them to be blocked, if they continue. There is no reason to protect the page over one editor's opinion. SoWhy 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection a dynamic IP address persistently changes height of a player away from the sourced height, merely because the player doesn't look to be that height. Has refused to provide an alternative source. I would request an editor block, but address keeps changing. --Ged UK (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection - Requesting full protection to protect page from an editor who keeps replacing the current image with a fan made image. Editor appears to be using sock puppets to try and create a false consensus for the change, and ignores any other editors that opposes him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I get some immediate assistance on this? Said editor continues to side-step the discussion and re-add his image, or other images (keeps swapping his choices), instead of focusing on the discussion about why those images cannot be used.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, case of edit-warring. You are hereby warned to not further revert this editor and I have warned the other editor to not do the same. There is no need to protect this at the moment. SoWhy 13:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection, An anonymous editor with a dynamic IP address has been inappropriately refactoring the page and adding links to Youtube, and has repeatedly reverted any reversions of those edits. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Nudve (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Harry S. Truman was indefinitely protected on 23 December 2008 by Rlevse (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), with the reason "enough of this cousin stuff"; on 5 February 2009 Rlevse was requested to do the unprotection. The article remains protected as of this moment. Can I find another volunteer for the unprotection? Thanks. 66.167.48.28 (talk) (formerly known as 67.101.6.67 (contribs)) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    I am afraid, but cousin stuff will reappear if the article is unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected Lectonar (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection See the last edit I reverted for the kind of vandalism that has gone on at this BLP. Steven Walling (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, News sources have just said that he was responsible for a 4 hour Police Chase in Los Angeles. Has not been confirmed and in the five minutes since it has been posited there has been excessive IP vandalism. Valley2city‽ 08:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Steven Walling (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection This article had an edit war weeks ago over whether Larry Elder should be considered a conservative or a libertarian and one user failed to compromise his viewpoint and after the protection was lifted changed the article and removed valid citations, while failing to offer substantial citations of his own. Another edit war appears to be brewing. I don't know what else can be done. Perhaps an uninterested admin can mediate or make a decision on this issue once and for all. Thorburn (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No, this is a content dispute more or less, so concensus needs to be found (just a thought: would it help if both parties refrained from tagging him concervative and/or libertarian and just find a "neutral" term?). You all made a good start on the talk-page, but what has become of the Request for comment? Full protection will achieve nothing here, just continue to talk and get third party opinions. Lectonar (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection, Continuous changing of sales figures by anonymous users, in disagreement with existing source citations. Tcncv (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Corrected: Indefinite semi-protection, Continuous changing of sales figures by anonymous users, in disagreement with existing source citations. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert; if needs be, warn the anonymous user(s), and we'll see about some blocks. Lectonar (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    move protect? Article has been under attack recently. Was semi-protected yesterday, but today was moved to "Urban Cryer" by an established user. Zeng8r (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected indefinitely. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 04:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection High profile BLP, excessive vandalism from IPs. Siawase (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'll watchlist it and extend if needed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=269856920"