Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

"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.

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 protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

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.

Maria Augimeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection dispute, On-going edit warring by several IP's vs. registered users for several months. Dinkytown talk 15:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:History of the Jews in Malaysia (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP user has been engaging in personal attacks, and deleting edits of WP administrators. - Bob K | Talk 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hector Sants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Repeated insertion of BLP vio link by IP. Same website as that repeatedly added to Paul Myners, Baron Myners, which has just been semi-protected for the same reason. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul Myners, Baron Myners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Repeated BLP vio link insertions by IP. Has been previously semi-protected for same reason. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Miz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection: constant changing of sourced information, addition of unsourced information, and general unconstructive edits by ips. NiciVampireHeart 14:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Sandstein's user talk has been vandalized a lot recently, temporary protection would be appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 14:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, The article and the Talk Page is being subjected to a series of edits of a singular nature that while not necessarily untrue, do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Attempts to engage the editor(s) who have been making these edits have garnered abusive responses and expressions of ethnic and religious bigotry. - Bob K | Talk 13:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rami R 14:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Willows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Anon IP (many from similar IP addresses - leading me to believe it's mainly one person) continues to place a family table not consistant with Wikipedia nor with other CSI characters. Also engaging in speculative, fansite type edits such as changing characters last name to last name of character she is dating. Has also repeatedly rearranged characters in other shows to list their favorites first. I have completely removed table, but do not want to be accused of violating 3RR, as I have only one IP address - IP vandals all from British Telecom. Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The IPs have also not edited the page since it was explained why the table wasn't allowed. 5 albert square (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

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.

Anti-Christian violence in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection. The contentious (but sourced) edit that triggered this indefinite semi has been reintroduced a few months later and it's still in the current version. Yes the IP has made some other POV-pushing edits in other articles, but still it seems unprotection can be tried at this time. Thanks. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not unprotected Protected by a CU in response to a highly abusive banned user. That someone later reintroduced the banned user's edit is not grounds to allow the banned user to edit again. Courcelles 03:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this section is not about lifting a user ban, and in fact note that the IP in question (86.158.176.5) is currently already unblocked.

In any case, can I please be pointed to the investigation and evidence that 86.158.176.5 is a Nangparbat sock? 220.100.87.222 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not without a CU bit. We don't play second guesser to CU findings, which are not always documented on-wiki. Here's a question, which of these articles do you actually want to edit? We can arrange to let you edit without weakening our defence against banned users. Courcelles 04:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but with due respect what I personally may or may not want to edit right now is irrelevant to my request here.

Given the lack of evidence, what are you suggesting as a way forward? Can you envisage a time in the future when this article can be unprotected, or are you saying that it's reasonable to keep this article semi-protected forever? 220.100.87.222 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps in a couple years. When we haven't just opened up so many of this troll's targets due to an IP that appears to do nothing except carry on a vendetta against one administrator. You've made something like 35 edits... every last one of them trying to overturn the actions of a single admin. Who are you? This becomes a very relevant question at this point. Courcelles 04:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I have your definition of "Nangparbat's target" please?

Since you ask, you will also find that a very high number of YellowMonkey's indef semis are regularly being undone here at WP:RUP. So what you are doing here is not only questioning my requests and my motives, but also implicitly questioning the actions of many other administrators who thought that my requests (together with the requests of at least another editor) have merit. I find this a lot more significant than any agenda I may have. I also still don't see how my identity is relevant to any of this. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotecting some of them may be reasonable; I've even done a couple. What is not reasonable is your crusade. At this point the only logical conclusion is that you are going through YM's logs looking for issues to raise. Time to stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Are you blocked under any name from this project or any other project of the WMF? If you are, then your identity is highly relevant, as the range of IP's you have been using to carry this mission of yours on is incredibly large, covering at least four different /8 ranges. Courcelles 04:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I am not blocked under any name from this project or any other project of the WMF, you seem to agree that my identity is not relevant. Good.

Without conceding that what I'm about to write is relevant either: as for why I pick on YM's semis, mostly it's just because his log is such a handy long list of far-out indef semis to be going through, really. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, since you brought up WP:WIKIHOUNDING, I quote: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." 220.100.87.222 (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're logging out to contravene WP:SOCK and edit project space in direct defiance of the clear letter of the rules. The logic just doesn't follow that someone would harp all over one admin's protections without ever making a single edit to an article. It doesn't make a lick of sense; somewhere, under some name, you had to make actual edits to the encyclopaedia, instead of all the IP socks that only edit project space and a few user talk pages. Otherwise... why would you care? (Unless this is an off-WP dispute with YM that you have brought here, which is the other logical possibility.) Courcelles 05:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your conjectures, and welcome to substantiate them. Until then, most of us will luckily stick to assuming good faith. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case this IP's edits to Tasmania related articles are rather POV and they aren't particularly good at sourcing, but their edits to India related articles look reasonable. We can't just block pages indefinitely for being edited by Nangparbat just because someone of British Pakistani origin edited them at some point (see this discussion for more). If you have worries then Pending Changes would be appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen. (However as you know, I respectfully disagree with the last bit about Pending Changes :-) 220.100.87.222 (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, asking for unprotections because of time lapsed is perfectly fine, but here we have one IP and one editor going on a crusade to say that Nangaparbat doesn't exist, wasn't bad or wasn't him. Three Checkusers and numerous admins have been involved in these cases and all we have is these two editors saying "I don't believe it". —SpacemanSpiff 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your report of what Eraserhead1 and I have been saying on Nangparbat is very inaccurate.

In any case, my request for evidence that 86.158.176.5 is a Nangparbat sock still stands. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What I have actually said is that it is highly probable that some (and certainly not all) of the people blocked for being Nangparbat are other British Pakistanis (of whom there are 700 thousand) who have the same large British ISP and whom, being of Pakistani origin, are generally pro-Pakistan. And actually noone has managed to come up with a substantial argument as to why that isn't at least highly probable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

S. P. Sailaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection. Please remove PC, there seems to be good IP activity and no vandalism. There is a minor content dispute on the year of birth, which is currently unsourced anyway, so this seems to amount to discrimination against unregistered editors. An indefinite PC seems excessive, also considering that the original indefinite semi also seemed unwarranted and heavy-handed. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Protecting admin User:MSGJ contacted here. Airplaneman ✈ 06:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected. No response from MSGJ, and PC was added as part of the trial, so it's okay to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Vineeth Sreenivasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotection. Please remove PC, there seems to be good IP activity and no vandalism. An indefinite PC seems excessive, also considering that the original indefinite semi also seemed unwarranted.

Also, potentially a bug report, the tab at the top reads "Show Source" instead of "Edit" for some reason. Thanks. 220.100.87.222 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Protecting admin User:MSGJ contacted here. Airplaneman ✈ 06:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected. See above. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

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

Until We Have Faces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Track listing has come to consensus from two registered editors. Anon insists on hiding the bonus track without discussion. One week block to anon hoping to open discussion rather than edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilbert Rideau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full protection dispute, Any kind of protection to protect against a user with less than 40 edits. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The main participant in the content dispute was reported for edit warring. If a decision is made to protect the article, it should be noted in that report as well. --Slon02 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Declined, for now. The editor seems to be a newbie who's having some trouble. Two admins acting on the AN3 report are helping him out right now, so further edit-warring does not seem likely. Re-request protection if the disruption continues, however. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

SM Mall of Cebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection, Repeated addition of promotional content by a range of IP's. VQuakr (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd say that all of those IPs that are vandalizing the article are the same person. The first 3 number groups of the IPs are the same- only the last set of digits is different. --Slon02 (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A prominent Buddhist teacher has self admittedly had inappropriate relations with females under his teaching. For some odd reason there is an edit war taking place on his page by non Buddhist members. There have been severe edits including a complete wipe of the page. I have reverted the page to the way it was yesterday but at this rate it needs some level of protection until this gets worked out in the media and within the US Buddhist community. This person is equivalent to a politician that has transgressed. There are angry people on both sides of the situation. This would not be a permanent protection only a short term one. Thank you for your consideration Golgofrinchian- Dont Panic! (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'll call this a "stale" report; no recent edit-warring and there is some discussion on the talk page. Re-request protection if disruptive editing resumes. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Please help me archive my talk page. Move User talk:Cunard to User talk:Cunard/Archive 7. Then add indefinite semi-protection and indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard/Archive 7. Restore indefinite full move protection to User talk:Cunard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Courcelles 03:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)