Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Czj (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 8 March 2008 (→{{la|7chan}}: +). 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.

    Semi-Protection: Vandalism, Edit Warring

    Considerable amount of vandalism, along with edit wars that mostly occur because people do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines on manga articles (namely, using the original source material), with lots of cruft, original research and invalid information being used from the FUNimation dub. The Magistratus (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Anonymous IPs adding unsourced results. Was previously semi-protected for a short period of time. Suggest semi-protection until end of cycle..... discospinster talk 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect considerable amounts of vandalism and bad grammer. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect due to continuous disruptive edit war. Anonymous IP has been warned but continues to revert to false information that is sourced.

    Semi protect due to current events. Martell is an NHL referee who has drawn the ire of Washington Capitals fans due to some questionable calls during today's game in Boston. The page has already been vandalized (the game ended an hour ago) but I haven't reverted it yet for two reasons: (a) It will make it clearer why some form of protection is needed and (b) The fans on the Caps' message board are gleeful about the vandalism, so reverting is likely pointless until the page has been protected. (As a Caps fan myself, I'm bitter, but vandalizing Wikipedia isn't the way to vent one's frustrations.) I suggest protecting the page for a week, until March 15. The Caps play three times between now and then (March 9, 12, and 14), so the fans likely will have moved on by then. Alternatively, protection through March 17 might be appropriate since the Caps play the Bruins again on March 16 and things may get ugly. 1995hoo (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: On the other hand, I see it's a new article created today for purposes of slander. Perhaps there is some way to delete it? I'm not familiar with how that is handled. 1995hoo (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection considerable amounts of vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - I don't really see much in the way of vandalism..some is present, but I'm not entirely sure it warrants protection. There was an IP that committed some who was blocked for 12 hours and has not returned. Just my opinion for the admins. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect. This is typical example of nationalistic edit warring from IP. Editor or editors are trying again and again to add in article how this winner of Nobel have been Serb. With hope of stoping this vandalism I have added english language internet link which are speaking about his parentage but vandalism has not stoped. --Rjecina (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    note edit warring about POV is more about content - it generally doesn't constitute vandalism, if at all. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Between 2 March and 8 March false information has been added 5 time from IP address. This is reason for semi protection !! --Rjecina (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Johnny Au (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi protect heavy ip vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protect. This page has been created and deleted 7 times. I suggest it be protected from being re-created. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    article is repeatedly vandalized, name calling and hearsay are constantly being posted to the page, reverting and undoing is not helping.... the lady will always be attacked as long as she deals with politics... please helpElie plus (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I have added the page to my watchlist. Rettetast (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protect edit war. Until discussion on talk page ends. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —EncMstr 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Ayoob BLP is constantly being vandalized with libelous material introduced repeatedly. I suggest it be be fully protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.221.145 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Only unregistered users causing the issue so I will just semi-protect the page. Might be one user using multiple IPs to cause disruption, hopefully (s)he will not continue after protection has expired. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Infinite semi protection too many issues when left unprotected. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism.The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. We do not protect main page articles unless there is extreme vandalism. Tiptoety talk 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Article seems to be attractive to IP editor vandals. .Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TalkIslander 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Vandalism.The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. This article has been protected many a time before. Time to clamp down a little more - we'll see how we go in two months time. TalkIslander 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Variable IP vandal inserting linkspam. Refuses to discuss edits on talk. Request 1 week protection. DurovaCharge! 09:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I view a week-long protection to be in excess of reasonable limits, considering the volume of edits to the page and the disruption transpiring there. AGK (contact) 13:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That should work, thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 19:54, 8 March 2008 (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.

    Article has been fully protected for an indefinite duration since Feb 19th 2008. The discussion on the talk page has died down, and I don't see any ongoing dispute there. I would unprotect myself, but I want to make a change, so I'll get a second opinion. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really know where else to make this suggestion, but several of the regulars on the WP:ITN/C page, including myself, have become rather frustrated by the rather drive-by nature of admins with regard to editing the template. Often times things that had not even been discussed go up, while items that have clear consensus from several lowly editors have to wait inordinate lengths of time before being posted. Additionally, minor changes are regularly made that are hotly disputed afterwords on WP:ITN/C and WP:ERRORS, often to no avail. There has been much discussion of creating a limited group of regular ITN contributors that would, in addition to regular admins (or not, whichever is easier), that would be allowed to better manage this highly visible part of Wikipedia's Main Page. Please leave a message on my talk page with the results of this inquiry or suggestions on how to better pursue this matter. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything on MainPage is protected to avoid vandalism. You may want to bring this up at Template talk:In the news. --PFHLai (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined A template that is directly transcluded on the main page should never be anything but fully protected. - auburnpilot talk 17:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm asking for a few editors that are regular ITN/C contributors be added to the group that can edit ITN. They are absolutely more qualified to be stewards of the template than the drive-by editors that are in control of it now. ITN/C is regularly ignored to the point where I don't understand why it even exists anymore. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, this has been brought up repeatedly on the talk page as you suggested. Nothing is being done about this and it's very frustrating. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm asking for a few editors that are regular ITN/C contributors be added to the group that can edit ITN." That group is called administrators and an editor can only be added to that group through a request for adminship. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. You see, I'm not advocating that we make the group of potential editors larger, I'm actually trying to shrink the group who can edit the template to the people who actually know what they're doing. The drive-by admins that edit now regularly ignore ITN/C consensus and behave in a manner many would consider akin to vandalism. Flouting consensus, whether as an admin or not, is unacceptable, I'm afraid. Again, I'm not advocating that we unprotect the ITN template, but I am hoping to keep the level of drive-by editing to a minimum. If this isn't the way to do it, please point me where I can get this moving. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands now, it seems that most of the admins that edit ITN are involved with the DYK and TFA projects, but don't regularly participate in (or follow, it appears) the discussions on ITN/C. I imagine that they would get pretty upset if I became an admin and started editing the DYK and TFA templates without knowing the conventions, policies, or consensus on those discussion pages. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a bold proposal. Send me a message if you want it updated; unless I'm on holidays, the turnaround should be less than 24 hours. Unfortunately, there's no way to expand the user rights without giving people admin powers. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting unprotection of the second largest English-language imageboard site, which has been protected since last year. Perhaps it's not worthy of an article of its own yet, but should at least be re-directed to imageboard, which is all I wanted to do with it. If vandalism is still a concern, perhaps it could be unprotected, redirected, and then re-protected. --Czj (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant 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

    indefinite cascading semi-protection Vandalism, Repeated vandalism from seemly unrelated IP editors..Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Lots of anonymous vandalism over the last few hours from several different IPs. Request 24 to 48 hours until whatever caused this influx has blown over. .Matt Deres (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 days. Doncha love school projects? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Awww, I never got to do school projects about pregnant five year olds. Now I feel like my education has let me down... :) Matt Deres (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, multiple accounts vandalising the article.Cloudz679 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Most vandalism is currently by a couple of single-purpose accounts - they can be blocked. TalkIslander 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection , High visibility image, which is found in every semi-protected page.Johnny Au (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It is only on a few pages. See the whatlinkshere section on the image page. Rudget. 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NB, the one in major use is Image:Padlock-silver-medium.svg. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it ironic? Will (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't exist theoretically. It only exists on commons. Rudget. 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected Image:Padlock-silver-medium.svg - can still be overwritten here. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only admins can upload an image locally over top of a commons image. S-protecting the empty page doesn't do anything other than stop new users from creating a local description page. The image needs to be fully protected at Commons. --B (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done ~ Riana ⁂ 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Riana, I am incorrect on that. Image:Padlock-silver-medium.svg is the image that is used on the s-protection template. It needs to be protected on Commons ... not this other one. --B (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, I knew that! ~ Riana ⁂ 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite full protection Vandalism, This page is repeatedly created and redirected to Microsoft. Please see logs..Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected ~ Riana ⁂ 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protect - Anon IP has replaced free image of this person with an unfree image, 5 times during the last 48 hours. Prior to this (from the beginning of March) the same thing was happening, and it appears that the unfree image from early March was deleted, but re-uploaded again, and the same types of edits have resumed in the last couple of days. Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. AGK (contact) 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection Page is experiencing an edit war of Anonymous editor(s) edits reverting one section. There is also possible use of Anonymous editor(s) as sockpuppets on talk page when trying to resolve the problems. Kilz (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget (?) 13:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. --JaGa (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 11:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Alot of vandalism today.ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 days. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:85.91.137.12 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    temporary semi-protection User talk of blocked user, User replaces warnings with the text "GO FUCK YOURSELF" or similar. User also removed his block template..E Wing (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for duration of block. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikipedia's talk page. Allows users to talk about Wikipedia. Porchcrop (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This merely transcludes the other village pumps. Refer to {{villagepump}} for the list of discussion pages. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. High level of user vandalism. In the past two weeks users have been blanking the page and writing unappropiate words.Erik93 (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protect. For months in a row, number of species has been changed upwards without reason by an Anon editor (despite several specific requests for references, the user has only responded when getting 3RR blocks). A brief intro into the situation can be found here and here. Instead of keeping on reverting to an extend which has the potential to end in an edit war, I therefore request a temp. semi-protect. RN1970 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 4 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protect. (3rd request, see Talk:Shadow people#Deja_Vu) Anonymous editor(s) continue to vandalize article by adding unsourced content and personal analysis. When article was protected, anon editors engaged in discussion (albeit abusive at times) on talk page. The 2-week protection expired before resolution occurred, at which time the anon editors ceased discussion and resumed edit warring. Recommend protection for longer period or until all editors agree on a path forward. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect: This article is controversial. Unregistered user editing page and removing cited text. Discussion has not resolved issue, and fear editing war eminent.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for 3 days - we do not semi-protect in cases of dispute. Please both of you mind WP:3RR. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=196871562"