Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toughdude (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 28 November 2009 (→‎{{la|Ciara}}). 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, Repeated vandalism by User:Bambifan101 on a non-blockable range. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AlexiusHoratius 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-Protection Vandalism by IP's and recently created accounts such as IHATECHILE are on the rise. Likeminas (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page gets vandalized every day but that's not enough. Interesting...Likeminas (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, another page being vandalised by a banned German wiki editor, user appears inactive and already has the talk page protected. Momo san Gespräch 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP and new account changes making Thomas Pridgen a former member of the The Mars Volta, which is unverified and apparently untrue. Beirne (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection vandalism, Appears a banned user from German wiki is vandalising this user's talk page, been going on since one month ago according to page history. Also this user's talk page and this talk page got vandalised too and got protection for the same reason. Momo san Gespräch 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection nothing but disruption coming from anonymous editors. This has been going on for weeks and weeks now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, The potential for BLP-related vandalism relating to this list is extraordinarily high, please see the related discussion at AfD. . RayTalk 13:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Doesn't seem that bad at the moment, and I feel articles at AFD shouldn't be protected unless there is an extraordinary amount of disruption occurring. The vast majority of edits are being made by registered users anyway, semi protection wouldn't have much impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Because of the Kosovo disputed status, the consensus version is edited and changed constantly by unregistered editors. Tadija (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 14:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Ongoing frequency of IP based vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. Pit Bulls are a controversial issue especially due to media coverage and fatalities and this is unlikely to change any time soon. Miyagawa (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, The rediction is constantly deleted, and page created with copy edit. Tadija (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It's hardly "constant" as a matter of fact, before today the last edit was two months ago. I've left the user a note explaining redirect pages and the proper way to address any naming dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Page history looks like a slow motion edit war. IP editor has requested admin assistance in edit summary. WuhWuzDat 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now, warned user for edit warring, watchlisted page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, IP vandalism resumed regularly after protection expired on the 12th. Protection log shows that it just never ends. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, a lot of WP:BLP violations by IP's/a new user the past week; many of those edits didn't get reverted immediately. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Appears the article has been neglected (not watched) by many, leading to that condition. The overall level of vandalism, and the tiny bit of BLP I saw wasn't a concern. tedder (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. IPs have been vandalizing this article repeatedly, and show no signs of stopping. Sophus Bie (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection for a week or so. Edit warring has erupted over the content of the lede. --TS 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism by AOL IP hopping sock, possibly the same person, vandalism started 2 days ago on the 26th. I looked in the edit history and the AOL IP vandalism goes back to February 2007, and the page log says the page has been protected 10 times since March 2007 with the recent being in October. I think it's time to put an end to this Charade with the AOL IP's. Momo san Gespräch 04:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Pretty clear case of indef for BLP. tedder (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Article has been vandalized by several IP socks of banned user Jacquesdurias for the past three days. -WayKurat (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. For the anti-vandalism of this page, it should be semi protected. --Funbeta 13:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NW (Talk) 15:19, 28 November 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.

    Unprotection – reduce to semi, This is currently the most hotly debated news story worldwide and has been for several days. We can expect nothing other than these conflicts to manifest also in the editing of the article about the debacle. Locking down the page as has been done today is however a terrible solution to this problem. I move that the protection level be reduced to semi-protection and that we battle it out as best we can with the assitance of a vigilant corps of administrators who I'm sure are already watching the situation keenly. __meco (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, This page was semiprotected over a year ago, and since then does not appear to have suffered signifigant vandalism. I believe it would be prudent to remove the protection, especially as this article is a great example of that which is good on Wikipedia. Quinxorin (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected It hasn't been vandalized because of the semi-protection. I don't see how it would be "prudent" to unprotect it either. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, I recently went to edit Ciara's page, because I have news on her upcoming album. However, it was said that I couldn't edit, because I wasn't registered. I believe that it should be unprotected, because since Ciara's fourth album doesn't have its own page, information about it needs to be uploaded to that page. Plus, since Ciara is still an active music artist, her page would need new addendums to it as time progresses. Thanks for listening. --PlannerPenBackpack (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see it being unprotected anytime soon per the page log. Also since you are a new account, why are you asking for unprotection when thats the only edit you have made so far is to ask for unprotection? Momo san Gespräch 03:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that one of the problems is editors without an account. So, I was wondering if you could instead limit it to people with accounts rather than ones who are registered. The reason I asked for unprotection is because Ciara is one of the reasons I want to edit wikipedia, because I see so many false claims about her. I am currently contacting billboard for her actual albums sales.--PlannerPenBackpack (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you are a new account, You would have to wait until you become Autoconfirmed since only those accounts can edit. Also you need sources when you edit this page too. I'll let an admin make the final call here. Momo san Gespräch 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, I'd encourage you to post edits to the talk page of the artist. tedder (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite Semi-protection Speculation about overview, episode #'s being deleated over and over, and adding other stuff being not needed from IPs are out of control. Also now they are adding inapporite thing to the page that is not even ture. This has been only unprotcted for about two weeks since the last protection and things are getting bad now. This page has already been protected 9 times, please make this protection actually last.Toughdude (talk) 18:21, 28 November 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

    User talk:216.246.164.118 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection user talk of blocked user, Vandalism by another IP, possibly connected. Refer to Barek's report on User talk:216.189.208.54 below. Momo san Gespräch 02:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sorry, got distracted with dinner. tedder (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Very high levels of vandalism over the past month, which has been very detrimental to the point that Wikipedia got a bad rap in an ABC article because vandals persistently placed Steven Tyler in the "former members" section. The vandalsim continues, with the latest being someone putting the band in the category of bands that were disestablished in 2009, which is also untrue. Apparently there's not enough patrolling or things aren't caught in time, but this article needs to be protected as it is still receiving vandalism and it's making Wikipedia look bad for not controlling it. Abog (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism target. Momo san Gespräch 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. tedder (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection, Article about often-delayed album to be released (for now) December 21. Throughout the year there have been issues with IP's/new users adding unsourced claims or altering accurate, sourced information, as is often the problem with articles about upcoming/delayed albums. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Protected until Dec22. tedder (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection, too much vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youndbuckerz (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Fixing malformed request. (X! · talk)  · @042  ·  00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (X! · talk)  · @043  ·  00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:216.189.208.54 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection (user already blocked - perhaps block without ability to edit own talk page?) ... user has been blocked for "vandalism", although more accurate would be sockpuppetry, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and editing against consensus and guidelines. Now that blocked, user is now repeatedly removing appropriate {{sharedIP}} template from own talk page, as well as posting what could be interpreted as a threat on his talk page here, which appears to be related to an alternate IP of presumably the same user, when Frmatt took an issue about the other IP to WP:ANI ([Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Vandalism at User talk:12.42.5.195 by 216.246.164.118 (talk) now in archive]). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a month --JForget 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi protection vandalism. @Kate (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection Ongoing edit war and at least one user has announced their intention to edit war due to lack of consensus w/o offering compelling evidence (I believe a google search is not sufficient, especially for a WP:BLP). Soxwon (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection for a week. Vandalism by severla different IP editors in quick succession. Razorflame 21:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Looks like at least three admins have altered the protection level in the past few hours already. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it is still getting hit hard by multiple IPs and should be edit semi protected. Razorflame 21:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what happened there. I protected this until the 28th, but it IPs were still editing? GedUK  21:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to wrap my mind around the numerous changes to the protection, and I'm not sure what has been going on really, except that there is current, persistent vandalism from an ip hopping anon user, so Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just one user, but 4chan#/b/. Writing quick Abuse Filters (like this one, and modifying them as necessary, is probably a better idea than semi-protecting the page for longer than an hour. Just for when the TFA is hit tomorrow... NW (Talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection vandalism, Because of his hospitalization, there will most likely be vandalism over the next 24 hours. Pookeo9 Talk If you need anything 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. GedUK  21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection, vandalism by several different IP addresses. Razorflame 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Only one IP editing really, today. Better to block them. GedUK  21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Tintor2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection, vandalism and insults.Tintor2 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. Let me know if you want it unprotected sooner. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Constant addition of unsourced info by multiple IP's. TJ Spyke 20:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Peter Symonds has already done this. GedUK  21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Most of the time and effort expended on this page is just RVV ping-pong. Not surprising given the title. (Think like a 13-year-old for a moment.) I suggest giving it some months of semi-protection. — ¾-10 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. NW (Talk) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Tremendous amount of vandalism within the last three days. The article will most likely receive vandalism since today is Black Friday in the USA. Schfifty3 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=328420296"