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 20:21, 5 April 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.

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Aiuw 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, I believe that fully protecting this template is overboard. Full protection is only for the highest risk templates. This template is not that high-risk. Therefore, its protection level should be reduced to semi. -- IRP ☎ 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC), modified 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Agreed. This is supposed to be subst'ed anyway so it shouldn't be transcluded at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite create-protection, The creator of this page has actively resisted the deletion effort, and has vowed to recreate this page. This page was deleted as a blatantly OR and biases soapbox essay, and should not be recreated again. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 19:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Threatening to re-create is not really cause for protection. If it is re-created, then some blocks and protections may be in order. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, People seem to like to vandalize this page, I just think that this will slow down all the I.P.'s. Please consider. Thanks!. JMS Old Al (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No edits in almost a week, and few reverts that I can tell in the last month. Wrong page perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:He did it for the lulz. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite create-protection Unionhawk (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, The page has recently had two counts of vandalism. I think that the page should be protected for 14 days. Andrewmc123 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment There have been two occurrences of vandalism by one editor in the article's entire history. Timmeh! 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Xclamation point 17:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, High IP vandalism despite several protections in past year. Timmeh! 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection for heavy IP vandalism since the launch of the missile. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection dispute, edit war. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned user. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not touch the page for a week. Kabad (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. since a few days the two protected sites are free to every one, ip spamming in VML let us to protect the page again. Please protect this page again, too. mabdul 12:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Protected by another admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 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.

    Unprotection, This page was protected because it was being used as an attack page. I would like to create the article factually using referenced material. The protection was put on over a year ago. Thanks! Jober14 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note Set to expire tomorrow but ask Evercat (talk · contribs) first please. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 5 April 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

    Unprotection, This page does not need to be protected and I need to fix the sock puppet tag. -- IRP ☎ 17:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Tan | 39 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Issues of last December now resolved and unprotection desired by consensus for purpose of updating recent events.RighteousPlague (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection for persistent IP vandalism for past few months disrupting improvement of article.Pmlinediter (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I see there's on average one a day, sometimes less. This isn't a major disruption warranting protection as it can and has been easily reverted by those who watch the article. Cheers. Nja247 09:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Radiant chains (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:BQZip01 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection Reinstate for this user talk page (arbitrarily removed by an admin with whom I disagree in unrelated topics) - persistent vandalism by socks of a banned user. "Contributions" to these pages include death threats, accusations of homicide, and other assorted slander/libel. These problems have been oversighted and removed, but this user is a long-term vandal who most recently created two sockpuppet accounts, made ~20 innocuous edits, and then continued the abuse as recently as 10 days ago. While this doesn't entirely eliminate such problems, it does force the problem user through an extra set of hoops to cause trouble. Please note that a prior request was unfulfilled and simply archived with no action taken on this talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking to see if protection is necessary. Conversing with user, this may not be your typical case of vandalism. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a case of simple vandalism, but overt harassment and death threats. If someone can act upon this in the near future, it would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, A anon editor using the 81.xx.xx.xx IP range continues to vandalise articles relating to the Tichborne Case (which is currently protected for a month). Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary full protection, User Indiecat (the director of the film) has repeatedly edited the page in a biased way and has ignored warnings on the talk page. WibWobble (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Those edits were made 2 years ago. Momusufan (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Declined, no biased edits since over a year. No deleted edits either. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection, Anon user continues to remove tags alleging they are vandalism and refuses to engage in substantive discussion in talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Anon_86.25.18.2A..2A_contentious_editing_and_misleading_edit_summaries_at_History_of_Terrorism. Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the talk page of talk:History of terrorism to see that as several editors have commented cerejota has never actually offered any specific justification for any tags, refuses to enter into any substantive discussion and is generally evasive when asked questions. if you do protect the page please make it a full protect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.218 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Ongoing vandalism from a (patently obvious) series of sockpuppets. Quick glance at the edit history should affirm this. Vianello (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Fabrictramp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AN/I does tend to fairly crawl with admins... :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I resisted the urge to tag it with {{RFPP|nea}}. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    <spews tea on keyboard>--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, excessive IP vandalism. Willking1979 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Like this one (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Full-protection/salt. Since Like this one is salted, the talk page should also be salted. MathCool10 Sign here! 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Hasn't been created since October 2007. I see no reason to protect this page now, so long after the incident. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection, Constant revisions. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Sustained edit war between IP users in an article that is sensitive to Christians. Gregorik (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Not currently enough activity to semi-protect the article for edit warring. I fully respect that the article may be sensitive to Christians, but dispute resolution will be far more effective than blocking all new and unregistered users. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection vandalism, vandalized once or twice daily for > 6 months. Popular subject studied by young school children makes this page a target. Dspark76 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=281957202"