Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roodog2k (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 16 April 2013 (→‎Current requests for protection: fixing). 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: IP vandalism related to Boston Marathon Bombings. IP users adding unsourced, copywritten, and speculative statements. Roodog2k (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Constant vandalism. Nightwolf87 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism/spamming by IPs Clarinetguy097 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: - the article is the current target of an IP sock of topic banned/indef blocked persistent sockpuppeteer AndresHerutJaim. It has been targeted by AndresHerutJaim socks in the form of both IPs and named accounts for around a year as can be easily verified from the article history. It was semi-protected for a month last year. The sockpuppet edits continued about half an hour after the protection expired on 2012-07-22 and they have continued ever since. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent false addition/change of content by IP. — Abhishek  Talk 14:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. IP has been warned....Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This happens to be a slow, but long term abuse. So reporting the IP is of no use. Page protection would really help. — Abhishek  Talk 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection would help so many articles....but the main vandaliser is 61..., and before that, it is even slower...if another admin wants to protect, fine. Imho, this is even under the threshold for pending changnes protection. My decision stands. Lectonar (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Content dispute between anon and a registered user. I set the content back to before the dispute began. Temporary full protection would not be unreasonable if the goal is to get both sides talking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Request a 1-month protection for persistent external link and primary ref spamming by employees of companies involved in this business. v/r - TP 12:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – I've had to revert multiple IP edits in the three days since this page has come off of the last protection for the exact same edit content. Can we try upping the protection period from 3 days to 14? Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC). Technical 13 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you. Hopefully the IPs will get the hint. Technical 13 (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ongoing blanking of sourced information to be replaced with NPOV-violating revision from IP[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. No consensus. Rest of community entirely opposed to version being pushed. No attempts at discussion from warring party. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Someone is constantly changing the seat capacity of Radnnicki's arena. . Nightwolf87 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Nightwolf87, you're doing great work on that article. If things really get out of hand, re-report it here or at WP:AIV.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – This article has been a vandal magnet since it was started. I suggest giving it indefinite semi-protection, as per that on Confucius, which will stabilise the article in the long term. LDS contact me 09:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending-changes protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent attempts over a couple of weeks by IP from 157.253.x.x to make a specific change. Mcewan (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Try to get the IP's on the talk-page; and as a sidenote: communicating by edit summaries alone is not very productive. Lectonar (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: The same reasons as below. IPs qualifying teams before it is confirmed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – A lot of IPs edit the qualify team without any reason, I and some other user undo at least three times a day. I request a semiprotection up to 31 May. Stigni (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  13:11, 16 April 2013 (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.

    This article was protected within about an hour of creation "to be on the safe side". Dennis Brown has refused to unprotect it because he believes that a consensus at AN/I has established that articles such as this should be protected whether or not any vandalism has taken place, and should remain protected. In my view that mindset runs counter to everything that WP stands for. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP hasn't given a reason why he/she is so desperate to have it unprotected. The bombing is still a fluid situation, and there is a larger than average number of fringe theories without evidence being thrown about. Unprotecting would certainly lead to the sort of unconstructive editing that would hinder the development of the article (IE racist screeds against Muslims, False Flag claims, hoaxes, and the disassembler (IE the vandal who replaces casualty related text with XX "human beings were disassembled" in articles related to disasters). I say leave it protected. Vilano XIV (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason why it should be protected. Nobody posted any of the things that you are worried about before it was protected. It is one of the most watched articles on the site. If anyone posted anything remotely resembling vandalism, it would be removed in a flash. If there is a lot of vandalism once it is unprotected, then it can be protected again very easily. I would hope that if that happened administrators would continue to unprotect it periodically to test the water, but I don't see that happening. There is a meme that has taken deep hold here, especially among admins and some experienced users, that ips are the enemy. That totally loses sight of the founding tenet of this encyclopedia: readers are editors. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, the bombings are high-profile at the moment and considering the variety of opinions being tossed around on its talk page, especially the WBC and the superfluous information discussions, it is probably not a good idea to have an admin unprotect a page whose content is being contested as such (see WP:ROUGH as well). --RAN1 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, see below for instructions on how to request an edit be made to the page and an autoconfirmed user will likely make the edit for you. --RAN1 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't it be easier to get verified rather than go through this sort of thing? That's what I'm doing. As it is, noone knows what your intentions are. People have begged to have articles unprotected only to vandalize them. It happened with the 9/11 article, Sandy Hook, etc. It has barely been 24 hours - give it some time.Vilano XIV (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP need not give a reason. This is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit and we default to unprotection in the absence of good reason. I note in passing that at least two other admins protected the article before the protection was assumed by Dennis Brown. I'm also minded to not unprotect this article for the twin reasons of the very high rate of editing and its high 'visibility'. It seems editors are barely able to keep the article straight as it is, such is the rate of incoming news, speculation, and other edits. The IP mentioned testing the water - it still looks too rough to me. Experience tells me with this rate of editing on an article with this much coverage, vandalism is extremely likely. And I dread to think how many are currently trying to read the article, hoping for an accurate vandalism-free article. Unfortunately there are some times an account comes in useful, and this seems to me to be one of them. It's why we have the {{edit semi-protected}} templates. Assuming another admin agrees with me and formally declines this request, try reminding me tomorrow to check again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (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

    A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=550703139"