Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aiuw (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 27 March 2009 (Requesting semi-protection of Pacu.). 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 of article protection, upload protection, or create 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. Aiuw 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Vandalism from multiple IP's. TJ Spyke 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Ongoing spam from a variety of online diploma mills, always placed by an anon IP. We've blacklisted some domains and added others to XLinkBot, but domain names are cheap, and it would be nice to be done with this problem in a more comprehensive way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection, The page has been a target for vandalism for the past few days. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Under attack (days across, not every day) by anonymous vandal(s) across the 71.197.xxx.xxx range of IPs (registered to Comcast). —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection - user page name User:Timlight has been changed/redirected to User:Calliopejen2 by unknown user Timlight (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Move protected -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection, High risk image that is used by many copyright tags. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 20:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected. SoWhy 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Semi-protection - Anonymous editors persistently edit Donovan's article claiming he is the new basketball coach at Kentucky, which, for now at least, is pure speculation. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--GedUK  21:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Constant target of anonymous vandalism. DVdm (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Horologium (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, One nut seems determined to add a block of rubbish, and has moved through a number of IPs. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I reported an AIV but they had moved IP. A short term lock would give editors a break. Maybe a week of semi may discourage this vandal. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I made the request the user has twice more vandalised the page. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We may need to protect Watchmen as well - this editor has been inserting nearly identical OR into that article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Page has been subject to repeated vandalism in run-up to G20 summit next month. Bazj (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Seems odd a policy page doesn't even have semi-protection, but either case appears to be the target of a possible vandalism attack as IP continues vandalizing the page from the same range, but keeps changing. . -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute Excessive edit warring by established/autoconfirmed users over use of decimal points in statistics. I attempted 3O but edit warring continues. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Related sockpuppet investigation to Flaming Butterfly and Flaming Butterfly: [9] Madcoverboy (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Disclosure: I blocked one editor yesterday and warned a second, and I filed the sock investigation.) I think this can be handled without protecting the page; in fact certain pages seem to be like honey to a fly. I am not declining this request but merely commenting as an involved editor.  Frank  |  talk  16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive user has been indefinitely blocked and after evasion with new sockpuppets, hardblock is likely. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done.--GedUK  22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Excessive edit warring by recalcitrant user who refuses to seek consensus, as shown in hist. page. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Related sockpuppet investigation to Flaming Butterfly and 2008–09 NBA season: [10] Madcoverboy (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Disclosure: I blocked one editor yesterday and warned a second, and I filed the sock investigation.) I think this can be handled without protecting the page; in fact certain pages seem to be like honey to a fly. I am not declining this request but merely commenting as an involved editor.  Frank  |  talk  16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive user has been indefinitely blocked and after evasion with new sockpuppets, hardblock is likely. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done.--GedUK  22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Excessive vandalism, as shown in the hist page. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedro (talk · contribs), the original protecting admin, has been notified. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Related sockpuppet investigation to Housewives' Holiday and 2008–09 NBA season: [11] Madcoverboy (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Disclosure: I blocked one editor yesterday and warned a second, and I filed the sock investigation.) I think this can be handled without protecting the page; in fact certain pages seem to be like honey to a fly. I am not declining this request but merely commenting as an involved editor.  Frank  |  talk  16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive user has been indefinitely blocked and after evasion with new sockpuppets, hardblock is likely. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done.--GedUK  22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. High number of IPs and newly created SPAs introducing WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The IP hasn't even been warned, and it's the main contributor over the past couple of days. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are at least five separate IPs and several newly created accounts that have edited within the last week. The IP does not need a warning per se since he's not vandalizing the article. This article is highly visible due to the viral video that is its subject and it has been attracting new IPs and accounts whose sole purpose has been to introduce their own original research and point of view. Warning one IP and reverting it does not do much to alleviate the concern, I'm afraid, since this has been an ongoing issue. Admittedly, there is not an immensly significant amount of disruption but there is enough of it that editors who have the article watchlisted might get in 3RR trouble by reverting unhelpful edits that are not blatant vandalism. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.

    All protected Disney aritcles

    I mean, come on now, these pages have all been semi-protected since December. SpongeBob was recently unprotected, and all those poor Disney articles need help. And The Lion King has a copyvio production section! I think the vandals have left, and what's the point of having the Charlotte's Web films protected if the book is unprotected? Rockskeeper (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    un-protection, I am a professional magician and want to keep this page updated correctly. Obviously Matt Adams is a common name so I'd like semi-protection of the page if possible. Matt Adams Magic-User:MattAdamsMagic 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Declined Please see my reply on your talk. Mfield (Oi!) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was wondering if my page could be unblocked. I re-did my article and submitted it under a part of the name (Dogeared) I was requesting just to see if it would be accepted and it was! Now I would like to post it under the name I originaly wanted (Dogeared Jewels & Gifts). If you unblock I can do so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmqbdg (talk • contribs)

    Not unprotected Wait until the AfD is finished. If the new version of the article does not get deleted from that, then it can be moved to the preferred title. --GedUK  08:12, 27 March 2009 (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

    Temporary semi-protection Increasing vandalism by an enlarging number of IPs. --MartinezMD (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Too many people are adding unsourced names to the roster list. ECWAGuru (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--GedUK  13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection vandalism, See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fishyguts and m:OTRS Ticket:2009032710024063. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-27t11:20z 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Any admin may unprotect page after SPI case has been resolved. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    US Presidents

    Can we unprotect many of the presidents? We have a lot of Presidents protected for very long periods or indefinite periods of time including:

    George Washington
    John Adams
    Thomas Jefferson
    Andrew Jackson
    Zachary Taylor
    Abraham Lincoln
    Ulysses S. Grant
    Chester A. Arthur
    Theodore Roosevelt
    William Howard Taft
    Woodrow Wilson
    Warren G. Harding
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Harry S. Truman
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    John F. Kennedy
    Richard Nixon
    Jimmy Carter
    Ronald Reagan
    George H. W. Bush
    Bill Clinton
    George W. Bush
    Barack Obama

    Aside from the living Presidents (Carter, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama) and Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, can we unprotect the rest of these? I don't see why Gerald Ford or Lyndon B. Johnson aren't protected, but Chester A. Arthur and Zachary Taylor are. Thanks. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined A quick look at some of the articles in question indicates why they have been protected, some indefinitely (George Washington), some temporarily (Zachary Taylor, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower). Instead of a mass nomination, try individual noms, and please review the edit histories first; sometimes the admins have a good reason why they semi-protect an article indefinitely. BLP is of course a concern, but articles about well-known dead people are often vandal-magnets, and semi-protecting a frequently vandalized article is the most prudent course of action. Horologium (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, some of these articles have deleted revisions (which you cannot see), which explains why they have been protected for lengthy periods. (Chester A. Arthur is one of those articles.) Horologium (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User talk:141.158.215.39 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection, misuse/abuse. The vandal has currently taken interest in vandalizng his own talk page instead of articles. The Cool Kat (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. --GedUK  11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    There has been repeated vandalism on this page by IP editors and banned user puppets. Now a citated statement is being removed by an IP user for some reason. So the request for protection. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 Week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--GedUK  09:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, This page is being vandalized every day. Requesting Temp. Page Protection. Oniongas (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--GedUK  08:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. The current offer provides bonuses for users who get others to purchase using a unique referral code. Unsurprisingly, a number of IPs have edited MacHeist's external links to include their own code. I would suggest semi-protection until the offer is over in a week or two to prevent link abuse. 24.174.68.191 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please note that you also will not be able to edit the page unless you log in--GedUK  07:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Edit-warring by new user despite warnings & talk page discussion. IllaZilla (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined With only one editor involved, it would be inappropriate to protect the article. I see that discussion has started on the talk page, and that the user in question has not edited the article itself since your last warning. If one editor continues to go against a clear consensus, take to WP:AIV, if the article descends to edit-warring with groups on both sides, bring it back here and it can be reconsidered for full protection until a consensus/compromise is agreed. --GedUK  07:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Old fashioned edit war between two users who both could be blocked, which would resolve the disruption to the page itself, thus protection is not the answer. The reverted edits marked as vandalism are questionable and could be a breach of the three revert rule. I suggest working together and not engage in edit wars and mind the three revert rule. Nja247 07:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, high levels of endemic ip-vandalism; lack of anti-vandal coverage. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: Prior two-week semi-protection expired a couple of days ago, and there have already been a lot of unconstructive edits made to the article again. -- Luke4545 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest the article be temporarily semi protected due to recent waves of vandalism – even the current vesrion is biased to a degree, and it needs cleanup. Compare recent history changes to see what I mean, and red the lead section to view current bias caused by vandalism. --Pgecaj (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 36 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been repeated vandalism to the Toys_R_Us article it seems, over 5 revisions this month, a friend has reverted some and I've cleaned some unsourced statements, but it seems there's an ongoing problem here. Considering it concerns a real-life, active corporation can something be done to prevent repeated vandalism both sophisticated (changing a hotlink from one redlink to an unrelated one) to typical (IE changing text to 'Im gay' or "MADISON NOWSACK LIKES XPLODING FIRE DILLY SHARKS"). Seems the article is a lightningrod given how familiar it is as a brand name and known it is to vandals. Wintermut3 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IPs inserting copyrighted text. . --aktsu (t / c) 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, a lot of it isn't getting reverted immediately; that's a problem since Jeezy is a living person. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=280111491"