Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vayne (talk | contribs) at 10:26, 5 August 2010 (→‎Current requests for protection: Added a request for semi-protection on article). 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, Unregistered users frequently blank sections or put their personal names under the 'Notable Persons' section Vayne (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Many IPs continue to assign this player to Real Madrid without any official source. Juanm (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, PC not having desired effect. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While PC is stopping the changes going live, there are a couple of IP's who won't stop, semi protection would be useful.Template:Endorse protectionAcather96 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite move-protection High-visibility page, no reason for be moved without a reason. TbhotchTalk C. 04:04, 5 August 2010 UTC

    Already protected. by HJ Mitchell Acather96 (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Vaughn R. Walker (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite semi-protection user talk of blocked user.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO re-blocking with talk page editing disallowed would be better here (plus it's the most common practice for these cases) Connormahtalk 03:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. TbhotchTalk C. 03:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be the best way to request re-blocking with talk page editing disallowed, in your opinion? Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. I tend to ask the blocking admins on their talk pages, but I'm sure I'm missing a better way ;). Connormahtalk 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, BLP of the judge who declared the very controversial California Proposition 8 (2008) unconstitutional today.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected One month. There has been a steady stream of BLP vandalism on August 4th and 5th from IPs and from non-autoconfirmed users. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism from a range of IPs coming in the last few days and more specifically the last few hours. Persistant adding of WP:OR and unsourced content. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, Overzealous fans have been editing the article in a non-neutral and improper tone for BLP. It is has varied from changing sourced information, adding unsourced information, WP:OR and changing colours/formatting to make from accessible for all to not as accessible. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/260956945.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined for now. Thread deleted. Also NW appears to be aware, see below. I am also keeping an eye. Elockid (Talk) 01:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/260956945.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator NuclearWarfare. Elockid (Talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes protection - article is a biography, and is subject to intermittent addition of badly referenced contentious material, some of which may be in breach of BLP issues (the subject is not living, but others are). The article lacks any references, and PC would hopefully ensure that anything added will be checked out as verifiable.  Chzz  ►  00:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Pending prot for 3 months. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, there is a great deal of vandalism and unconstructive edits happening on this article. As a hope to warrent GA status within the next few months, a stable article will benfit. ChaosMasterChat 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: You do realize full protection means only administrators can edit it, don't you? If it's going to be going through a GA assessment within the next few months, shouldn't autoconfirmed users be able to edit it? I would recommend semi-protection, not full protection, in this case. However, I'm not an administrator, so the decision is not up to me. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 00:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Edit warring is going on adding possibly libelous information to article and a 'street fight' to the subject's professional fight record. TreyGeek (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Elockid (Talk) 00:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, More vandalism fresh off of protection. Tommy! [message] 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Elockid (Talk) 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protect.vandalism, Vandalism noticed from unregistered users. Prometheus | প্রমিথিউস (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Tommy! [message] 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Elockid (Talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This article has been vandalised seven times by IP address in the last couple of days. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment its on pending changes, and since the start of the month there have been 10 good IP/new user edits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined for now. There seems to be some constructive edits around. Elockid (Talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    create protection Request that only registered users can edit article in order to reduce frivolous edits and vandalism. Numerous frivolous edits and, at times, vandalism by anonymous i.p.'s. Registered users have been correcting edits by anonymous i.p.'s. Mnunes76 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection high-visibility template. Acather96 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term full protection edit war. Note the ongoing arbitration case, so approach with caution. Note also that [1] was stable for almost 5 days... Hipocrite (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Other admins, feel free to change it. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (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 - not too sure as to why this was protected indefinitely after only 2 instances of vandalism... Connormahtalk 03:16, 5 August 2010 (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-protection or full, Law overturned, users jumping the gun, CNN says they are waiting to see what it means for the ban. ruling stayed CTJF83 chat 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected One week. About 40 edits in 40 minutes since 9pm UTC, some of them messing up the format, so a slowdown could be beneficial. The judge has stayed his own ruling, so there is some risk of misinformation if the article is updated too fast regarding the legality in California. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection PC Changes not working, Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy. TbhotchTalk C. 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Question - Why isn't it working? Do you mean it isn't working technically or is it that it's not enough? It would be helpful if you could explain this. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I think he/she is saying that PC isn't working to it's desired result - to allow IPs to edit constructively. While I see lots of reverts, I do notice that there is 2 accepted edits in the history, so it may be worth leaving it on PC for a bit longer, but it's not up to me. Connormahtalk 22:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Connormah, this is exactly what I mean. TbhotchTalk C. 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, There was no apparent edit war going on on the page and the full protection came out of the blue and is rather excessively long. Admin who placed protection did not offer any reasoning beyond the single line he used to protect the page, did not respond for days on his talk page about a request for the reasoning then when prodded again for a response refused to give it. There is an active discussion on the talk page about if the article name is appropriate, but no real edit war beyond the normal edit/revert/discuss process that these highly contentious articles get. Would like an uninvolved admin to review and see if a protection of this length was justified. — raekyT 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected While two weeks is somewhat long full protection, I don't know how you can claim there was not an edit war brewing at the time, and there has been little substantive discussion on the talk page in the time since, suggesting that edit warriors are simply biding their time... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection: Same case as this one and this one, just a different sub page. Over the last several months (see page history) IPs (most likely the same person based on IP range) have been warring with DASHBot over the removal of non-free content from this userspace page in violation of WP:NFCC #9, which prohibits the use of non-free content in userspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. How very odd. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I CONTEST. The user asked for protection as a way to force his harsh opinions ( User:Tadija/Awards, Talk:Yugoslav_wars#NO ) over other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.210 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Continual attempts by new editor to introduce non-neutral POV and OR, ignoring consensus as reached on talk page. Reverts are getting to the point of being disruptive. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly full protection? Would Semi protect against someone who's been registered for two weeks? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of four days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I would remind you both that the only exception to WP:EDITWAR is reverting blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. IP address keeps editing the template into an insufficient way even after two warnings from me and with the album's release their is expected to be much more vandalism. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest full protection, looks like 3RR was definitely overstepped by the involved parties and the edits were merely about details and not vandalism. There is no discussion on the talk page either. Hekerui (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. IP address keeps re-inserting misinterpreted sources after TimVickers said they were misinterpreted sources. Donald Duck (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. IP address keeps re-inserting misinterpreted sources after TimVickers said they were misinterpreted sources. Donald Duck (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. IP address keeps re-inserting misinterpreted sources after TimVickers said they were misinterpreted sources. Donald Duck (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes (level 1). On-going vandalism, lasting for several months, by editor attempting self-promotion with false information. Editor hops IPs frequently so blocks are ineffective, but input is pretty much always the same: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 2 months. Pending changes trial ends in under 2 weeks but this article needs longer; remind me in two weeks and I'll review it then. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High level of IP vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection high-visibility template, The template itself is protected, so I'd think that the redirect to the template would be, as well. Pilif12p :  Yo  18:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection. High level of IP vandalism. Consistent effort to blank the article and to re draft it with information from the organizations pamphlets.Rick jens (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. One fan of this actor is repeatedly reverting this page to a much worse version that has lots of POV and many unsourced claims. This page has been semi-protected several times, so it should perhaps get a long-term full protection. Johannes003 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. although I would note that long term full protection is almost never done on an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Early today, a group of IP users were adding non-English to the article. Now a group of IP users have been rapidly changing this player's club and number. I don't know which one is right (if any of them), but I think we need the crazy editing (all w/o edit summaries) to stop to figure out the correct answer. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, IP user is continuing to change counter to consensus, and hsa not given any explanations for change; it's presumably for POV reasons; user is not on static IP, so block won't help. Can we have a temporary page semi-protection to see if makes the IP pay attention to our requests for dialogue on talk or just stop reverting?. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, The article is repeatedly being vandalisms and is a headache for editors who have it on their watch list. This article is well developed and a review of the article history shows a high level of vandalism stretching back years; the majority of edits by ip editors is vandalism. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected let's see if that gets it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    create-protection, Repeatedly recreated. elektrikSHOOS 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined only created twice, hasn't come back. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection dispute, Requesting page protection to avoid an edit war in this article. Believe it or not, we dispute there is a dispute, and the edit war involves the POV notice tag. Hopefully, this can encourage editors to work our a consensus on the talk page prior to inserting edits into the article. Request that the POV notice tag be added to the top of the article to direct people to the ongoing work in the talk page to find consensus. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SaltyBoatr has a history of requesting page protection in order to halt editing of this page when other editors begin to reach a consensus with which he disagrees. He also has a history of POV-tag-bombing the article in such cases.[6][7][8][9][10] Please see the comments from his last protection request which was declined. --Hamitr (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with everything said by Hamitr. There is no dispute other than between SaltyBoatr and all the other editors at the 2A article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After extensive attempts to work this out over my ~4 week involvement with the article, including attempts to moderate/organize consensused forward progress, I have concluded that Salty has been relentlessly working to POV this article, including utilizing WP mechanisms and WP saavy wording to further that end. The article needs significant updating to reflect recent Supreme court decisions, and one focus of his efforts is to prevent this from happening. IMHO trying to get the article locked up is another prong of this effort. As I have learned the hard way in my approx 4 weeks involvement in the article, one must read the talk etc. in depth to get an understanding of what is happening there, quick impressions have a high risk of being wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO Salty is also relentlessly obstructing and disrupting (in a wiki-saavy way) all attempts to develop updated content for this article. Something should be done; he is an intelligent editor but this situation is bad. Possibly a warning would be good. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've agreed with Salty in the past on this article, and I'm not a regular contributor there, but this is not the right forum for this issue, and full protection is absolutely incorrect in this case. This needs to be brought up at edit warring if it is that bad (which it's not) and perhaps discussed at RFC. Shadowjams (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SB has a _very_ long history edit warring over this article. For a previous attempt at RFC, Arbcom, MedCom, etc, check out this Yaf (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SB seems to believe that if one person doesn't like the article, they can hold it up indefinitely. In the past he has often exhibited the belief that consensus requires unanimity. The constant attempt to hold this article back from any improvement he disagrees with has become tiresome. I feel strongly that he doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong, but nonetheless his behavior is approaching disruptive. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Salty has ownership issues with the article, and does not work well with others. Just because Salty doesn't like how the article has evolved, to reflect two key Supreme Court rulings, is no reason to freeze the article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, Indefinite semi-protection needed due to sockpuppeting user (10+ and counting) operating from numerous IPs over a 5-month period to willfully introduce false information. Mokele (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. (semiprotected for three months by Mufka). AlexiusHoratius 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:88.246.219.104 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, First the user vandalized User talk:Christina Silverman, when I reverted it (and warned him) he vandalized my user page... Fabian Hassler (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I think you are on the wrong noticeboard. In any event, I gave the anonymous user an additional warning. If vandalism continues, report the user at WP:AIV. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High level of vandalism by anon. editors. This article is a magnet for disruptive behavior. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. (article seemed pretty quiet other than that one IP). AlexiusHoratius 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=377277335"