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.

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection This article attracts a high level of targeted IP vandalism from multiple IP addresses; at least 14 reverts in last day or two, and the number has been increasing. Request long-term or permanent semi-protection as there is a history of such vandalism which came back up when the last short-term protection expired. Subject is a controversial figure (possibly on the eve of becoming even more of a vandalism target) and although article is probably widely watchlisted, the reversions have been dominating the activities of a few editors. Tvoz | talk 08:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected --Robdurbar 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that the current semi-potection tag be changed to the less obtrusive {{sprotect2}} and removed after an appropriate timeout interval. I believe that any move to establish permanent semi-protection is premature and preemptive for this article. I have previously expressed this view on the article's talk page, where no consensus has yet emerged on the issue. While it is true that some IP edits have been needlesome, they are manageable because the article is closely watched by a global audience. Reverts have been made by many editors, including some with IP addresses. Blatant vandalism is usually corrected within minutes and at all hours of the day. I have been an active contributor to the article since September 2006. Though I appreciate that there are others who may define the role of semi-protection differently, I have reviewed the policy documents and I think my view is more to the mainstream of the current thinking. Kindly consider my request. --HailFire 15:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kriss Donald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect Rotating anon IP engaging in edit war on article. --Strothra 04:19, 3 January 2007 (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.

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

This article is a legitimate article. It is a similar act to that of TPing, egging, etc. There is no need for its deletion. Magging has become increasingly popular in the Orange County, California region and is spreading. It is silly to label it as a neologism, as the word neologism was once a neologism. That is a silly reason for deletion and protection.--Jalad.azadi 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template has been put on full protection from editing to prevent vandalism as it is included on more than 500 pages. However, there is no history of vandalism and I feel semi-protection would be more appropriate. Philip Stevens 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vidya Balan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

why is this page still protected? It has been one month.

everybody understands that this page should have Malayali and Devanagari ( Hindi ) scripts. Urdu is disputed. so please at least leave Malayali and Devanagari ( Hindi ) scripts in the article. The dispute about urdu can be resolved later. Preetikapoor0 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yadavas of devagiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page is locked on following reasons:

• Usage of Google books (I have proved their use is allowed)
• Tagging Template:More Sources (Is that illegal or wrong? A user is writing irrelavant things about his loyalities)
• Marathi citations (Any language citations are allowed. Besides I have used many English citations also)

The protection is done to disallow news users and anons (I have edited as both.) I have worked very hard to get the sources and citations. All are requested to carefully examine my changes, i have not done anything against rules or norms. I have discussed and justified everything on talk page as well. Vishu123 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is said that Justice delayed is justice denied. Plz can someone look into this article? Vishu123 08:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Patrecia Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both of these were semi-protected by Nandesuka at the out-of-process request of a user who is in content dispute with editors at those articles. This user has a self-avowed bias towards a particular POV and has not provided any valid reasons or evidence for semi-protection. Effectively, the semi-protect is aimed to protect his particular edits in articles mentioning Objectivism, which is contrary to protection policy.--Leflyman^Talk 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected I havn't even looked at the content, there was clearly not high enough volume of IP editing to justify semi protection --Robdurbar 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for significant 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

Fatos Tarifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection from multiple anon IP vandals in the past couple of days.--Thomas.macmillan 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protect Many IP user vandilism/spam over the past 2 days. Cocoaguy_contribs^talk 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semi-Protect This article has had far too much vandalism since it has existed. Especially in the past 6 months. I cannot keep constant watch on this article and I have lost track of what has been lost and the quality of this article has been greatly reduced due to vandalism. I think this article needs to be protected against future vandalism which will for sure happen frequently.User:Tajik-afghan_contribs^{Parsiwan 05:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)}

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. I have also watchlisted the article and will check it periodically. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob Eubanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi-protection. Several IP editors have been vandalising with personal attacks on this living person. Sam Blacketer 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The user 12.36.235.46 has been blocked from editing. Nishkid64 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Smallville (Season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi-protection. Numerous IP editors are continually inserting plot details for episodes that have not yet aired. Repeated requests to wait until an episode has aired and not use info that could only have been plagiarized from other web sites are being ignored (or perhaps not even being noticed). Richwales 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism/plagiarism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Numerous IP vandals, erroneous edits, all within the last 24 hours. The reverting is getting rediculous over there, and we can hardly keep up with it all, especially in the last few hours. This article has been semi-protected three times in the last month, but then some admin removes it. Why!? Please protect and leave until this current event is over for a few weeks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid64 23:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. Consistent vandalism; eyeballing the page history, I'd say about 30% of the edits are vandalism or reversion related - and from multiple IPs/users. moof 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Friesian horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request semi-protection. Frequently has silly POV nonsense inserted by anons and article is not heavily watched, these edits can go for days before being caught. Montanabw 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Just a little activity in the past couple days, then back to mid-December. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

It is frequently vandalised by anons.S.GaneshKumar 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Steel 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. A group of IPs are blatantly vandalizing the article. Valley2city 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined. It was being vandalised by a couple of IPs for a period of 20 minutes early this morning. Seems to have stopped. One is blocked anyway -- Steel 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Request Semi-Protection harrasment from anon ip, Maybe Chadbryant? DXRAW 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user with a test4. If he persists, file a report at WP:AIV. I doubt that this will be semi-protected as it's just one IP address that's harassing you. Hbdragon88 06:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Declined. No harassment for almost two days, leave me a message if it continues. -- Steel 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dick Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Year's is now over so hopefully "out of sight, out of mind" for the vandals. Trebor 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it another day to make sure we got them all. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wanted to request it before I forgot myself. Trebor 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:165.234.100.1 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has repeatedly vandalized articles, especially those dealing with Democratic politicians from North Dakota. He was blocked for a period of time and his talk page was protected. Now, he is back and up to his old tricks [1] [2] [3]. I would request that his talk page be unprotected so users can once again start posting warnings to him. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. Warn away. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dental floss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting unprotection, as the situation in this article is not a content dispute, but rather disruption by SoLongBaby, who has a single purpose account used only for edit warring on Dental floss, and has been warned by two administrators that he will be blocked if he continues to disrupt the article ([4] [5]) Blocking the user responsible for disrupting the article is far preferable to full protection due to a "content dispute", which prevents nearly all legitimate editing. John254 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. If he keeps on being distruptive, you can report him to WP:AIV or even my talk page! Not as much an edit war as one user going completely against consensus (and removing the "use" section ??). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why is this article semiprotected?

After protection (full protection) has been lifted I saw only three vandalizing edits, from the same IP (actually, another IP even corrected vandalism, see history of the article, right before semi-protection). So, according to Semi-protection policy it should not be semi-protected in this case. This situation could be considered "as response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others" (specifically, it restricts me; I am not vandal but contributor to the article). Also "Semi-protection should not be used in the case of a static IP vandal hitting a page".

So, to summarize -- there is no reason to keep semi-protection to this article. 193.219.28.146 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above user - semi-protection was used a little bit too quickly on this article... -Localzuk^(talk) 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Page un-protected[6] by Cyde. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Semiprotected because if anon IP external linkspammer. Been a couple of days now and is an article that benefits from a lot of anon editing. How much longer would we usually keep such a page semiprotected? Spartaz 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little early still. Give it another day or too and hopefully the vandals/linkspammers will go away for good. I'll unprotect it in a couple days time. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Spartaz 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)