Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12056 (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 21 March 2010 (Requesting full protection of User:SoxBot/Run/CHU. (TW)). 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.

    Indefinite full protection, "Juliancolton" only placed a semi-block, bot control settings should have full protection. R12056 (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection high-visiblity template. R12056 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection high-visiblity template. R12056 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Numerous accounts, possible socks of [1], same unsourced original research and soapboxing. JNW (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Tommy (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 03:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Evenios (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. NW (Talk) 03:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, vandalism. Tommy (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I've done it for a month for now, as there doesn't seem to be a huge problem, but if it starts up again after the month, ping me and I'll extend it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism due to line-up change and recent album release. Nbeau1989 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism and due to the high profile departure of a popular member of the group has left alot of fans deleting and altering information. Nbeau1989 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it vandalism, or is it editing? I'm not seeing a lot of recent reverting. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't realize it was connected to Sweet 7. Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, resumed right after protection expired on Thursday. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection There has been a lot of vandalism in the last few minutes. Merlinsorca 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 22:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Until the album release if acceptable: April 13. Numerous accounts are still adding "leaked from torrent" information. No legit information being present. F-22 RaptörAces High♠ 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 25 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Pedophilia (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary full protection vandalism, This page is undergoing vandalism by numerous sockpuppets tonight. Can we please get this page locked?. 5 albert square (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary Full protection. Persistent vandalism. Same as Child and Writer - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 6 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —SpacemanSpiff 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, This page seems to be undergoing a sockpuppet frenzy tonight. 5 albert square (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —SpacemanSpiff 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, This page seems to be undergoing a sockpuppet frenzy tonight. Same vandels as Child and Pedophilia Stillwaterising (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —SpacemanSpiff 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - Constant adding of unsourced information about personal life of topic. Monni (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Not sure what it going on with this user page Stillwaterising (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe 22:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection - recent upkick in vandalism, some going unnoticed. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe 22:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, High vandalism. Stillwaterising (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 22:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Constant level of IP "vandalism" over the last five days. --Shadow (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 23:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism. Various anonymous IPs keep removing content but are refusing to give a reason for doing this. 5 albert square (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection dispute, Edit war between an IP and two users. Discussion on the talk page has been scarce at best, and presumably the user and IP are sockpuppets based on their edits. . Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism by an unregistered user, using different IP's.TheFBH (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism by an unregistered user, using different IP's.TheFBH (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism by an unregistered user, using different IP's.TheFBH (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, High quantity of vandalism. WP:BLP --Aleksd (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 13:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive IP vandalism activity on BLP because on air radio program. Maybe 24 hour semi protect. Polargeo (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected by administrator Chamal N. Ruslik_Zero 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Copy and paste moves by an IP, without any discussion on talkpage.  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Ruslik_Zero 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Copy and paste moves by an IP, without any discussion on talkpage.  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Ruslik_Zero 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection, Copy and paste moves by an IP, without any discussion on talkpage.  [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 10:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Ruslik_Zero 13:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:66.169.145.236 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Temporary semi-protection user talk of blocked user, Inappropriate use of user talk page by blocked user while blocked. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) re-blocked with talk page editing disallowed. Ruslik_Zero 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, High quantity of vandalism. Koolabsol (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Ruslik_Zero 13:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Persistent vandalism over the last couple of days. Minimac (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism, Persistent vandalism, using private and unsourced information of the artist, the vandalism IP was warned, could be blocked but, probably he/she will use another IP to do it.

    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.

    User talk:George tan031993 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Unprotect this shit. Hagger.

    Declined - Philippe 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotect too this bitch.

    Declined - Philippe 23:04, 20 March 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.

    Requesting to redirect this creation-protected page to Shmoo as a plausible misnomer. No objection to keeping it protected as a redirect if that seems advisable. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    Unprotection, TTTSNB did not request protection. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined It's move protected. I've left them a note asking them to contact NawlinWiki if they want that removed as well. GedUK  09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Vandalism. I'm sure the vandalism will continue due to the page belonging to a Disney Channel Star. An IP ban might do, as well --Mrjinxed (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Seems to happen about once in a week. Mostly silly vandalism, not persistent and no real BLP concerns either. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism. Though I'm certain I will be rejected on this request, System of a Down is on Wikipedia's list of pages to keep an eye on for persistent vandalism. I revert unsourced genre additions at least once or twice a day, in addition to unsourced speculation that the band is going to reunite and yada yada yada. Despite several notices, it keeps coming in, almost every time from a different IP/account, and 99.5% of the time from an IP or newly registered user making their first or second edit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. It does get annoying when the newbs add new genres to articles, and stuff like that, but such edits are good faith edits, and we don't generally protect articles for these reasons. Please keep fighting the good fight, but this isn't edit warring, and it isn't vandalism. --Jayron32 04:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalism being made by different IP's but likely to be the same person, therefore temporary semi-protection is needed. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, I just used the wrong vandalized template...was really confused there. . Tommy (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection, Sock-labeling maybe vandalism of a registered user's userpage. Stillwaterising (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. Seen this one before. Jayron32 04:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection Repeated removal of content by numerous IPs with no attempt at discussion. I don't know if the IPs are all the same person abusing open proxies, or if it's meatpuppetry organized by some off-wiki forum. I do note that this is the only edit in the history for the majority of these IPs. The hope is that semi-protection will at least get these IPs to acutally discuss their issue. Anomie⚔ 02:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Jayron32 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, Part of the Barack Obama series. All of these pages are being vandalised, i recommend all of them being semi-protected. A p3rson (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Article has been edited 10 times in the month of March, and only 2-3 are clearly vandalism. None of the vandalism is coming from registerred accounts, and articles are not protected preemptively. There's nothing here that cannot be handled via an occasional vandalism revert. --Jayron32 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Nearly all edits to the article are vandalism by unregistered users. A month semi-protect would help. Student7 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The article has only been edited by four IPs in the past 25 days. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Low volume of recent vandalism, the undo/revert tool seems sufficient for now. Consider relisting if the volume of vandalism increases in the short term, thanks. Taelus (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Declined for now. Relatively low volume of vandalism, consider relisting if the volume of vandalism increases in the short term. Judging by the page history, its entirely possible it was one incident of vandalism that won't re-occur for a good period of time. Taelus (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, As this page is a front page article, it should be protected at least until it is removed. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. We do not protect articles for simply being high visibility. Additionally, no signs in the recent history of a problematic level of vandalism, and infact some good faith edits from non auto-confirmed users. Utilise the undo and revert tools for now, consider relisting if the volume of vandalism increases in the short term, thanks. Taelus (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Due to a frequent amount of high school students with little free time, I request temporary protection (at least users who are registered), for this page. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Only one vandalism edit in the last 3 weeks. Too early for protection at this stage. Taelus (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Users post spam and politically charged content, I request protection for the time being. . Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Decline for now, the revert tool is sufficient from what I can see as the problematic content comes in batches only once a day or so. Additionally, several batches come from the same IP, who should be warned/engaged as appropriate. Consider relisting if the volume increases to a point where the revert tool is not sufficient, thanks. Taelus (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, usual ip's changing things, inflating positions and certifications and undoing correct formatting. Mister sparky (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I'd say that it is better to just fix it, rather than blanket protect the page. It is not malicious vandalism as far as I can see, inflating positions and such could be good faith yet misinformed edits, and breaking formatting is very easy to do when you don't understand how it works. I object to the use of the edit summary "usual ip crap" too, this does not build a positive editing environment. Taelus (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=351107125"