Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Torckey (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 28 January 2010 (→{{la|Howard Zinn}}). 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.

    User talk:George the gorge (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Indefinite full protection user talk of blocked user, Banned user. Baseball1015 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. —C.Fred (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, This article page style is repeatedly spoiled by anon ips by introducing unnecessary wiki links as also in the notable bunts the names of people with no articles are being repeatedly added.an anon ip recently vandalised the into section removing all reference tags.i request page protection from anon ip's.i added indifinite but you can decide to make it temporary but page protection necessary. Linguisticgeek (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    total-protection

    A number of bias users are attempting to prevent any editing by anyone other than fans of the articles topic even if what they are writing is well established in other parts of the article. --Torckey (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has already been blocked once for edit warring on the article, plus this request is in the wrong section. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked by zinn fans who can't stand to see anyone speak truth to power about their hero. --Torckey (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This request misrepresents the facts, and assumes bias and bad faith of others. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh it's not like you marked a critical review "dubious" right next to a link/citation. Oh wait you did that among a number of other things. --Torckey (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:69.118.250.128 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection user talk of blocked user, Talk page abuse, personal attack againest another user, see here. Momo san Gespräch 05:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. NW (Talk) 05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection vandalism, Constant vandalism dating back quite a while. . Enti342 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Not a huge amount of vandalism, but sometimes it isn't caught quickly. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Excessive Vandalism tonight. Aruton (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Done by someone else. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Tosh.O host asked his viewers to edit this page. Expecting vandalism for a few days. Jon Ace T C 04:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Fully protected for two weeks. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Last semi-protection expired on January 10th and since then vandalism has been around 41% of edits. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Full indef protection. Vandalizing the page with a cut and paste from another page, copyvio. Woogee (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Excessive recent vandalism. MegaSloth (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protect Page is continuously vandalised by IP who keeps trying to 'adopt' it as their own, even going so far as to fake their page sig. User in question appears to have not edited for quite some time, but it's still their page. HalfShadow 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Malinaccier (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, See ANI note here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Paella_Article. Frmatt (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC) NOTE: I submitted this after a quick google search which verified the ANI information given. Didn't want to repeat it all here! Frmatt (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Main Page (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Vandalism by numerous IPs, reacting to recent behavior. 99.156.69.78 (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, School assignment and a magnet for heavy vandalism by IP and registered users. After 60 revisions (counting vandalism and reversion), page is exactly back where it was 15 days ago. Not a single legitimate edit, only vandalism (requiring constant tending). Please help. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Malinaccier (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Continuous Vandalism for two weeks. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, already protected. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. (For the bot). Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive amount of anonymous vandalism, suspiciously similar to a blocked user. Request page protection for both pages. See the endless reverts on both pages for details. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary cascading semi-protection vandalism, High level of anon vandalism. Request page protection for 24h. Oneiros (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected It was protected for three days and thirty-six two hours at just about the same time; anyway, it's semi-protected for some period. -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been protected for two days. -- tariqabjotu 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article also appeared to be attracting a lot of good-faith edits from new and anonymous users. Sometimes leaving a high-profile article open, as is done for featured articles, can be good for business (i.e., attaching new editors). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the amount of vandalism? -- tariqabjotu 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. After further review, the majority of IP edits were vandalism. My initial random sampling must have hit a few that were good faith. I also incorrectly assumed some of the red-link users (without user pages) were new, but they were not. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and we're clearly still getting lots of valuable contributions from relatively new users. To compare with a featured article, Marjory Stoneman Douglas got about 60 edits (including vandalism and reverts) in the day it was on the main page. iPad was getting up to nine edits per minute - that's about 500 times more activity. At that point the latencies inherent in the web interface mean the article disintegrates under the weight of vandlism and botched repair. Even semiprotected it's getting about one edit per minute, or 50 Stonemans. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Connormah (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. (Upgraded from one week.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Unregistered users (and a few registered ones) have been adding advertising and links to their own companies or organizations. Maybe a semi-protect would help squelch that for a bit.
    -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Connormah (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection Edit warring. 13 reverts in less than a day and a half. I wouldn't mind if blocks were handed out to both parties as well. As an involved admin, I'm simply asking another admin to review the case and act accordingly. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. Specifically, Ari89 (talk · contribs) and Eugnostos (talk · contribs) have been blocked. -- tariqabjotu 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tempotary full protection. This page is undergoing repeat attacks from nationalist (from which country I can't tell) who refuse to accept the consensus on the page, which was to let it be a disambiguation page. The ownership problem with these people is clear from their edit summaries in the article's edit history. Woogee (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of seven days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent semi-protection: Nothing of note has happened for a few weeks, yet Stephen Conroy's page is continually vandalized by IP addresses. cojoco (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Continued vandalism from an IP hopping vandal. Requesting temporary protection of the page. NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: semi-protection expired on 26 January, since when it's had the normal terrifically witty and erudite additions, which are unlikely to diminish while it's still in the news. Yomanganitalk 22:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: BLP issues from anonymous IP users. It's only going to get worse once the 2010 Winter Olympics start, so requesting preemptive 30-day semi-protection to try to reduce manual cleanup work during the Games. Dr.frog (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of five days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection: One or more IP users have been repeatedly deleting sourced material for more than a month now with the bewildering explanation that the material pushes some agenda or other. All attempts to seek an explanation on the talk page or otherwise resolve the dispute have failed. The failure makes it very difficult to continue to assume good faith. The edits look disruptive at this point, if not exactly qualifying as vandalism. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of seven days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- tariqabjotu 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, the template is frequently transcluded. Panel Guy (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection, the template is frequently transcluded. Panel Guy (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Recent spate of IP vandalism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. I don't see any evidence of vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection for at least two weeks. High level of vandalism, presumably due to the Saints making it to the Super Bowl, which is on February 7. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. NW (Talk) 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Looking for 48 or 72 hours to ward off apparent anti-Israeli IP vandalism, persistent over the course of several weeks, possibly months. . Bdb484 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Malinaccier (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (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 has Been protected for at least 6th month's and ip"s deserve another chance. The 4th season is now over and it seams that they won't be vandalizing this page. If Vandalism continues we can protect again. Or maybe think about shorting this protection length for a few more month's. Thanks . Checker Fred (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would really appreciate it if an admin who has not dealt with this issue before could carefully evaluate both this request and the account that made it in order to determine if we are once again dealing with User:Simulation12. I think I got too close to this issue and would like some fresh eyes here. My apologies to Fred if I am mistaken, but the pattern is hard to miss. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2010 (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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=340483334"