Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geoffrey Rush (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 28 February 2009 (→‎{{la|2009 ATP World Tour}}). 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.

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, ongoing IP vandalism . Pontificalibus (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Multiple IP's adding in unsourced and false info. TJ Spyke 23:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, not notable and has been recreated three times. Megaman en m (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protect. The article has been vandalized at least 14 times by at least 6 IPs this month. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temp semi protection - Addition of unsourced crap by multiple IP's. — R2 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    temp. full protection This page has become a joke. Various editors and IP users are turning the article into a fan site. It appears that every time something is posted on Spears's site, its in the article, no matter how minor the detail. Cited information is removed and replaced with information from fan sites, message boards, etc. The page is also being crystallized by editors reading too much into minuscule/vague details. The page is also written in bad grammar and uses disambiguate reference links instead linking directly to the information. I believe this page has been protected once before. Lyonhunter (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect, ever since the last protection expired IPs have been vandalizing the page and adding speculation every five minutes. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Repeatedly recreated article about a non-notable band. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect Under fairly heavy attack by random-IPs. Edit history shows some vandalism by named attacks, but primarily IPs. HalfShadow 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:68.218.209.5 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection vandalism, Suggest reblocking or protecting page making threats . Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move-protect. This page is currently the subject of an MFD and extensive, controverisal talk page discussion, and has been moved 5 times over the past day as a result of these. Could it be move protected at least until the MFD is over and a decision is reached? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Formerly often used as an attack redirect, and now a vandal has tricked a bot into vandalizing it despite semi-protection (see history of the target Tard, Hungary as well). Should not need frequent editing. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Megaman en m (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protect. vandalism by a user with dynamic IP address, Temporary semi protection from 17 to 24 February didn't work. this user is still continuing ! --Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Almost all the edits in (at least) the last month have been vandalism and reversion thereof. . Babakathy (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: A long edit war has ensued among several users on whether or not Brian Dawkins is truly with the Denver Broncos. -- Luke4545 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. Left the expiry time from prior protection. SoWhy 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect indefinitely - Both of these have had several instances of vandalism in the last 24 hours and I'm very surprised that Cena' article was unprotected seeing as a lot of the wrestling articles are a heavy target for vandals. This is just opening the door straight in vandals faces. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for both of them. Both just became unprotected less then 2 days ago. You have to give it a little time to see it it calms down first, not just panic and request more protection. -Royalguard11(T) 16:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "You have to give it a little time to see it it calms down first" - erm, the two are active wrestling stars in wrestling's biggest company and you're asking me to see if it calms down first? As I speak there is still vandalism occuring because of a declined RFPP request. D.M.N. (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that they were just unprotected within the past couple days, and articles are not usually re-protected so soon after unprotection. -Royalguard11(T) 18:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi protection dispute, Require protection due to the continued IPs adding information in the infobox that isn't suppose to be there. Govvy (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasking for protection, There has been a count of 20+ vandalism to the page this month from (unregistered) IP based users. Govvy (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protect. The article is under heavy attack by several IP vandals. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Looks like it was mostly one IP today which can be blocked. SoWhy 18:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Banned user keeps coming back as an IP every night. I'll ask for unprotection later. NJGW (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected Semi. Request unprotection if the problem goes away. EdJohnston (talk) 08:03, 25 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.

    Semi-protected since February 2008. Semi-protection isn't supposed to be a permanent measure. -137.222.114.243 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This IP has had a history of vandalizing pages, he/she only wants the page unprotected so he/she can vandalize it. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF, second this is a shared IP of Bristol University as a simple nslookup would show you, thirdly all the recent edits from this IP have been constructive (if you'd bothered to look) and fourthly did you actually see my comments on Talk:Tony Blair on the relatively minor modifications I wished to make if I had the ability to? I somehow don't think so. -137.222.114.243 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some <redacted> has protecfted me. It's an angry editor with no reason... he's a <redacted>. HelP!

    Not unprotected PeterSymonds (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Unprotection.

    There has not been any activity or deleting wars between any parties for two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh15363 (talk • contribs)

    Please review the notability guidelines for biographies. I am quite sure that one of your high school friends most likely will not be considered notable and I suggest you save yourself the time to create such an article. Regards SoWhy 18:22, 28 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

    Semi-protect vandalism Mario777Zelda (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -Royalguard11(T) 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The page includes POV wording added by User:Histopher Critchens such as: "advocates [...] genocide of all non-Muslims in the area." and "The SSNP claims to unknowing outsiders that their emblem is a mere combination of the crescent and the cross.", as well dubiously sourced claims that the party is based on the Nazi Party. The claims were included in the article as the opinion of some scholars, until reworded as a known fact by Histopher Critchens who refuses compromise. The page was protected by User:Kralizec! who decided that all the IPs reverting User:Histopher Critchens belong to the same person. Also, instead of being blocked for sockpuppetry in the same article (see User:Wikipedius Reparo), Histopher Critchens, is, for some reason, still editing. Oumf1234 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected Lectonar (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you at least remove the POV wording and the big "NAZI" part in the intro? Oumf1234 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. I went ahead and did this based on the history of vandalism on your user page. If you just want the whole protected with cascading protection, just ask. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Being CONSTANTLY vandalised by the same person, this is the FIFTH time he's done it, and no, he CAN'T be banned because his IP keeps changing, I keep telling you this. Please, DO something. At the very least, explain to me how it is possible to ban someone whos IP keeps changing. CBFan (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm very sorry, and I can see you're frustrated. The problem I have (and I read everything, including the article history and your prior requests) is that this isn't really vandalism as much as content dispute/slow edit war. I'd consider full protection, but there are constructive edits in there so the level of disruption isn't high enough. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protect considerable amounts of unconstructive edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This a high traffic page with a lot of editors who are not savvy in the ways of WP. We need to cut them some slack. Relist if the disruption becomes severe. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. High level of recent and ongoing IP vandalism. --Jh12 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Requesting temporary full protection on a the feature article for 1 week (until the next volume of the manga comes out) due to the contriversial nature of one of the character's. This has caused continual reverts and edits citing unverifable claims and use of synthesis and other original research and if not protected will likely continue to escalate. I suggest using this version as everything relating to the character Hinata is verifable per the last volume of the manga. じんない 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'm inclined to deny for now. There are a ton of edits, but that's sort of the nature of the beast for this type of article. If things pick back up relist (or ping my on my talk page if I'm around). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This article has been witnessing very frequent vandalisms, almost every day for the last few months consistently. Am hoping that a temporary protection will help. . prashanthns (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not every day, but there's a high vandal/constructive edit ratio going on for relatively lightly viewed page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Article has seen substantial IP and single-purpose account vandalism on a daily basis since it was first expanded a few weeks ago. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit warring from multiple accounts who only made edits to that given page. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This was a good report when made, but unfortunately no one got to it in a timely way. The primary combatants seem to have declared an end to the edit war on the talk page, although I see an IP showed up and reverted back. Relist if there are further problems, and I'll place on my watch list. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Repeated edits of IP sockpuppets of block-evading User:Korlzor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor/Archive. Additional note: Korzlor has now tried to enforce his edits through several IP sockpuppets 6 times over the last 24 hours.--Don Lope (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Looks like a content dispute to me. If the IP is a block-evading user, make the case at SPI where a checkuser can verify. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect. Since there was no sense in which it should be semi-protected, ask your Unprotect. Thanks

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, JA/Grawp attacks. DFS454 (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 11:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=274002175"