Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.95.7.96 (talk) at 07:57, 20 October 2009 (→{{la|Pacific War}}). 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-protect. High level of recent vandalism activity by new users, as well as IP editors. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The level of vandalism isn't high, but I've semi-protected it for a few days to help you sort things out (i.e., make sure you got it all). tedder (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection. About 50% of 400 edits during every school year, except during summer, is vandalism by numerous anonymous IPs (almost all of the rest are reversions of that vandalism). Joe Kress (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Hasn't been protected since 2007. Number of edits (per day) isn't terribly high, but it's enough that I'm willing to see how the semi-protection works (per WP:ROUGH). If indefinite protection is required, this article will need to work its way up the protection length ladder- for instance, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, indefinite. tedder (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect for 3 weeks. It just came off of 1 week semi-protection, and the anons are at it again. Finell (Talk) 02:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Kevin (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Finell (Talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IPs removing awards content. . Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting.. Edits appear to be good faith attempts to remove redundant information. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary cascading semi-protection vandalism, Page has been vandalized numerous times this evening. . ttonyb (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected Kevin (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - Vandalism and 3RR violations. Maybe for a couple or three days until the story settles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, persistent vandalism. IP-user keeps on removing perfectly good sourced onfo about 1 of her children from the infobox, since 18 October till 6 minutes ago (doesn't show any interest in the rest of the article and the editor has been asked to stop making non-constructive edits on his/her talkpage). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, per WP:BLP we should not include the names of children, even if they have appeared in the media unless there is significant value in doing so. On that basis, I could not call the IP edits vandalism. Kevin (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of that she has 2 children and only the name of 1 of them is constantly removed by the IP-editor; if that is not vandalism what is it then, semi-constructive editing? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined In order of priority, make sure the names of the children/minors meet WP:BLP, use the WP:UWT user warning templates against the IP once that is done, and (c) leave a very detailed note on the userpage asking why they are removing that specific information. Further attempts will result in the user being blocked. It's a single non-IP-hopping user, so page protection isn't the best first choice. tedder (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, persistent vandalism. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Not a fan of indef, but this is an article that obviously needs it. tedder (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully-protect. Current dispute over name title keeps getting changed The Movie Master 1 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. semi-protected and fully move-protected by User:Xeno. tedder (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Incorrect information constantly being put in Current Squad section from IP idiots and a user by the name of Cambazero (who does it everyday) and I'm tired of correcting it. A simple ban of Cambazero may do the trick, but page protection might still be needed. Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Use undo or revert, then use the user warning templates against Cambazero and the IPs; if that is done, cambazero can probably be easily blocked and the need for page protection will be more obvious. tedder (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Please semi-protect for atleast 2 months. If you look at the history, you will see there is a lot of vandalism coming from IPs. Please protect this page, It really needs protection. --Hadger 23:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --Hadger 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Yet again seeing an increase in vandalism from multiple IPs. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I note you semi-protected Clock above which hadn't seen any recent vandalism for 1 week. This vandalism on Bruce Lee is daily --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the templates aren't as precise as they could be. Clock's last 50 edits are mainly vandalism/reverts, and it hadn't been protected lately. Bruce Lee just came off a period of recent protection on the 15th, and I want to see if things die back down. Feel free to relist or drop a message on my talk page if problems continue. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I looked again - I must have looked at the wrong history or something, or maybe I'm just crazy. You're right, this article is a mess; I'm protecting. Sorry for the hassle. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:45, 20 October 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.

    Possible admin abuse. The page was protected by Nick-D with a possible violation of WP:Conflict of interest as he had been active in editing (sometimes out of consensus) related articles such as Allies of World War II. Also the reason for protection is take from an unproven allegation rather than a fact.--119.95.7.96 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This page was deleted/protected due to an attack by a former employee, who was editing our page with false content in a poor attempt at a joke. This situation has been resolved and we would like to create a new article (or edit the currently deleted one if it is retrievable) and have this article back on your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLFilms (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected – Please create a sourced version of this article in a subpage or your userspace. When this is done, please make the request again, or ask any administrator to move the page for you. Will handle on User talk:SLFilms's talk page. tedder (talk) 03:45, 18 October 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 vandalism, Persistent Vandalism. SMP0328. (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Only two unique vandals today. tedder (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe when the persistent Vandalism continues for a total of a month semi-protection will be granted. Then again, we wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the Vandals. They may magically be rehabilitated. SMP0328. (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Repeated Vandalism (And it was doing so well…). Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Xymmax. tedder (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection, Help me please. This has been advertised as a Wiki page to be updated... everyone who updates it is offered 1 free DVD from the subject's published workout DVDs. The amount of pure fluff, OR, and uncited ... erm... content being dumped in here is annoying. A helpful admin has provided some good sources but incorporating them is tedious atmo. (And no, I am not getting one of the videos)- Sinneed 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, pages at AfD typically are not protected in order to give everyone a chance to try and improve the article. It's going to have to get pretty bad before I'd protect this one. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, constant IP vandalism. UltraMagnusspeak 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism in view of his current arrest. Kerr avon (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Create protect. Has been deleted 11 times. Pikiwyn talk 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Enigmamsg 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, needs to be protected for a while... South Bay (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Enigmamsg 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Pikiwyn talk 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Aqwis (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Much recent vandalism from multiple IPs. Deor (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, Daily featured articles are usually not protected. tedder (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be approaching the point where we can protect, though... Tan | 39 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't usually look at the main page and didn't see that this was featured today. Deor (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Tan, it is getting there. Perfect article for a schoolday, I'm guessing. tedder (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Okay, the vandals win. tedder (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Also a target of recent IP hopping vandalism. Related to requests not far below. Onorem♠Dil 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP hopping troll targeting this and the Employee Free Choice Act article for a couple weeks now. Onorem♠Dil 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IP hopping troll targeting the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and this article for a couple weeks now. Onorem♠Dil 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. tedder (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Article has been the target for several persistent IPs in recent days, inserting personal commentary about critical reviews of the series. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Aside from a little blurp a week ago, there have hardly been any edits, let alone vandalism. tedder (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Semi-protected about a month ago for heavy vandalism. The protection expired recently and vandalism is again picking up after it expired. . Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. tedder (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=320965360"