Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.228.108.57 (talk) at 05:13, 14 February 2011 (→‎Current requests for unprotection: format fix). 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, abusive vandalism from IPs and new accounts has been a regular daily occurrence over the last two months. The last semi-protection was for a month and expired in December. Fæ (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Airplaneman ✈ 04:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect mass vandalism; Grammy Award related Kiwi128 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting Severely vandalized. Help! EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected by administrator RockMFR.. Airplaneman ✈ 04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect mass vandalism and problematic edits Kiwi128 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse for a day or two, given that she just won the Grammy for Best New Artist. elektrikSHOOS 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. Protected until 03:35, 17 February 2011 by Diannaa. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Has been target of community-banned editor PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). Editor SteveoJ (talk · contribs), a recently-blocked sock suspected to be PoliticianTexas, made extensive changes to this page, and an anonymous editor who is likely PoliticianTexas has been edit-warrring to preserve those changes. --69.97.113.13 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Spate of edits ranging from questionable content to outright vandalism being added by both IP and registered users. A short period of full protection might be wise for some cooling off. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, Multiple recreations. Feezo (Talk) 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite pending-protection vandalism, Can this article be please placed on pending protection - a couple of singel purpose accounts repeatedly adding uncited and some controversial content - there is a report at the BLPN also. . Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Set at level 2. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Repeated deletion of information about the sale of the ship to Greece by IPs in Turkey. Semi protection for a few weeks should suffice --McSly (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, repeatedly recreated. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. I'll leave deletion up to another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation protected. I've also create-protected all the various re-incarnations of the above article that appeared on the users talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (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.

    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, Vandalism from anon IPs has become a regular persistent daily occurrence on this article. Fæ (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Two IPs have recently begun to tag and delete portions of this article. I reported the first IP to WP:OP, as a suspected IP of mark nutley, who is blocked for sockpuppetry for using IPs when blocked. The second IP has actually identified himself as a sock of the blocked user. See the report at WP:OP here. TFD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. there may be vandalism and socking involved, it's hard to tell, but there seems to be a lot of back and forth between established editors and IPs alike, so maybe a few days of full prot will allow things to clam down and encourage use of the talk [age. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Repeated vandalism from IPs. —Farix (t | c) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, ip's adding unsourced and fake info. Mister sparky (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Moderate levels of ongoing vandalism by IP's. The artist's page is already semi protected; can we try semi protection here for a week or two and see if things calm down?. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, On-going vandalism, possibly originating with 4chan. SummerPhD (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This page has had to be previously deleted because it was vandalized to say that it was a school for dinosaurs. I would like to protect this from happening again. @ d \/\/ | | |,~Adwiii -Questions? Comments? 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term semi-protection The usual kind of IP vandalism and self-insertions that come with these kinds of articles now that the nominees for the upcoming show have been announced, none of them correct. ClueBot has been having to revert alot here lately. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, random IPs from the same ISP as well as new accounts are persisting in adding the exact same personal attack dating back at least several months. The article has been protected twice, the last semi-protection being for a week. Fæ (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, straight after the last protection expired, more ip changing of info and adding in of incorrect info. Mister sparky (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, a tricky one, but the main issues appears to be more a content dispute (or at least a good faith misunderstanding on the aprt of the IP). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Unremitting IP vandalism of a high profile environmental article by mostly middle-school level vandals. Request 8 weeks of page protection until their term projects are complete. Thank you. HarryZilber (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Davewild (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Unprotection. The page was protected for some reason two years ago, but the redirect links to the wrong page and it needs to be fixed. Shadow (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Protected since early 2009. Looks to be a content dispute. While some sourced content was removed by IP editors other editors were removing statements sourced (and backed up by) CNN and the Indian newspaper the Hindu (see for example this diff for both).

    There is some history of content dispute, but even so indefinite semi-protection seems to be excessive at this time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thinking some more I think pending changes would be best for this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection, Protected since March 2009 and while there is some vandalism the primary issue looks like a content dispute. One user was blocked as a "sock", though it wasn't stated who they were a sock of. Additionally the content removed immediately before being semi protected was sourced to the BBC and the Boston Globe - though admittedly it was POV and not entirely backed up by the BBC source (the Boston Globe is behind a paywall). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thinking some more I think pending changes would be best for this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected and Pending-changes protected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Salt, for a reason, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Reg1997 six (6) CSD of this article in three days (and REG JAYCOBB JACOBO). Lavalamp from Mars (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These also need salting too.REG JAYCOBB JACOBO and Reg Jaycobb Jacobo. --Kudpung (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Courcelles 00:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=413826746"