Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.158.144.231 (talk) at 10:27, 20 February 2009 (→{{lt|Central America topic}}: comment (edit)). 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. consistent vandalism with malicious unsourced revisions. It is now being vandalise almost on a daily basis which suggests a personal vendeta.Breuerman (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Warrington (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 09:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect.High level of IP vandalism. Warrington (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 09:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism and reversion. Edit warring beginning to take place. White43 (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Not vandalism but content dispute. Open mediation case indicates that there is no consensus. SoWhy 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full-protect please. The article "Fluoroquinolone toxicity" has been heavily expanded by an editor with a conflict of interest. Several longstanding editors from WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology have raised concerns about the quality and reliability of information. Doc James has kindly re-written the article using reliable sources at "Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones".Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, I see no reason to protect this article. If there is a problem with a single editor's contribution, the correct way is to block this user if needed. SoWhy 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi protection vandalism, Vandalism by 80.25.246.167. Jvr725 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. User 80.25.246.167. Hopefully no protection needed. Lectonar (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Several IPs try to insert a bogus and libelous quote, which was established on the talk page as fake. This is an ongoing thing, so I think a long-term protection is needed. Nudve (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 09:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, In the past few days there has been a very high %age of vandalism/tests (i.e. most recent edits to this page are vandalism or test edits -- very few of the anonymous edits are useful). Not confined to a single IP or range. Thinboy00 @305, i.e. 06:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection high-visiblity template, no reason for new or anon users to edit this, and it is very high vis, was vandalized earlier today. Terrillja talk 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against another user who disagreed with her about a separate article. Orlady has now followed user to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Far be it from me to guess why Audreetucker has been repeatedly removing this article from Category:Living people (one of the several deletions that were made in a series of unexplained edits), if this user's objective is to protect Mr. Davis' privacy as a living person. --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked. by Kevin (talk · contribs). SoWhy 09:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is undergoing vandalism from multiple IPs today. Please see this, this, this, this , this and this . The things in bracket translates to Son of an owl - Stupid/idiot/fool, Son of a bitch, very good, and some more abusive in Urdu/Hindi as far as I know. Requesting semi protection.

    Thanks, --Jyothis (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days. Tiptoety talk 04:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection dispute, Plenty of edit warring and not much discussion. I count 17 reverts in the last 48 hours. The article is already semi-protected. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: No edits in the last few hours, perhaps it's died down. I've watchlisted though, and if the edit war breaks out again I'll either block or protect the page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, IP's constantly vandalize the page. Elbutler (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. It is persistent nonsensical vandalism from various IP addresses and has been going on for a long time.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Jonnyhottrod[reply]

    Note: are you sure this is the correct article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, "Business letter" is the correct article. It has been persistently vandalized over the last year. The vandals are from various IP addresses and do things such as wiping out whole sections, then typing things like "hold on I'll type something later", or typing in their own name, etc. As soon as it gets fixed by someone they do it again. They must be getting a kick out of doing this.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)jonnyhottrod[reply]

    I think he meant Business letter with a lower L, but Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism. Ben (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - most probably by one and the same persistent multi-ip user 216.40.67.* - DVdm (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked.. I placed a range-block on 216.40.67.0/24, hope that blocks that edit-warrior out. SoWhy 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection editwar. This template has being going back and forward for a while now, there is an IP that insists in putting Mexico in Central America even though this issue has been solved before with previous users in the same template, so there are constant revertions being done to the article, and I think the best would be to semi-protect it for maybe 2 months, to hopely stop this war. Supaman89 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please answer this petition. Supaman89 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, it's always the same IP, I warned it to stop. If it continues, warn and/or report for block at WP:AIV. SoWhy 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and rightly so. Also, please caution the petitioner to justify why they and allied parties choose to suppress what is already in the article. There's a reason why it's called an edit war: because two editors in particular continue to revert (Supaman89 and Jcmenal). They keep mentioning that there are discussions and a consensus to justify their position, but fail to produce. There is certainly no discussion on the template talk page. Simply read the article and notes. 69.158.144.231 (talk) 10:26, 20 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.

    Indef protected since Nov 2008. Seems like overkill. Miami33139 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - Tiptoety talk 22:06, 19 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.

    Needs updating with sandboxed template. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Semi-protect. Just mentioned on 30 Rock, where a guy was vandalizing it... :/ —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Already protected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotection requested for this article; frequent anon vandalism, including several vandals in a row (ie, without a non-vandal edit in between) today. -- Why Not A Duck 02:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary (but fairly lengthy) semiprotection. Since the last protection (of one month) expired five days ago, there's been nothing but frequent vandalism and reversion. Let's give this one a considerable rest from vandalistic children. Deor (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This page was protected for one month for "vandalism". There was no vandalism, only fully referenced statements discussed on the talk page. This is a controversial topic. If the page can not be unprotected, can the page be classified as controversial or disuputed with a warning at the top? Mwalla (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

    Note: please contact the protecting admin, Template:Skier Dude. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, I'm not sure what must've happened at this school, but vandalism is through the roof today. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, heavy IP vandalism. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, heavy IP vandalism recently. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protection. Otherwise clearly our IP friend is just going to keep coming back and re-adding non-Ukrainians Banach and Tchaikovsky and whatever others to the list, with the same spurious references that have been removed so many times in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Repeatedly recreated by Bostonpimp (talk · contribs). →Dyl@n620 22:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Various amounts of vandalism and POV editing from wide-ranging anonymous IP addresses. White43 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, This template is substituted into deletion discussions to indicate that the discussion has been listed on a given WP:DELSORT list. As such, any vandalism to the template would be hard to trace unless you knew exactly what produced the message, and even harder to clean up. I have added a class="delsort-notice" to the template to help alleviate the problem (and allow user scripts and bots to more easily find substituted instances for whatever reason), but I still feel full protection is warranted. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Full protection isn't necessary until there is evidence of vandalism. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:AK193 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary full protection user talk of blocked user, Perma-blocked vandal abusing help template on his talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    This page was protected for repeatedly creating the article. The reason I kept creating the article was because it was deleted for a reason I think is unfair. There are a lot of other articles out there about a website, organization, person and whatnot that violate the TOS even more than the article I was trying to set up and they don't get deleted.

    Declined Create a copy of the article in your userspace, and if it meets the guidelines for inclusion, it can be moved into mainspace. Looking at the deleted versions of the article, they were not even close to meeting the notability and verifiability requirements. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Extensive anonymous IP editing since February 3. These edits seem to all originate from the same individual but from different IPs, causing large burden in terms of warnings/reverts/blocks. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    User(s) blocked. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism. Since this article was created, most of the history seems to be vandalism and "rv vandalism". This is unlikely to change. Urine is funny. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=272042871"