Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VoABot (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 12 July 2008 (BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. [PR: 1 | UR: 0 | RfSE: 0 | FR: 1]). 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 protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    semi-protection. Recently died Bush administration official. Has already experience a healthy amount of ip vandalism since the news broke, recommend a semi-protect for a couple of days till things settle down.--Finalnight (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection , Someone on ED requested Grawp vandalize this template; please protect to make sure that doesn't happen.Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection , Someone on ED requested Grawp vandalize this template; please protect to make sure that doesn't happen.Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection , Someone on ED requested Grawp vandalize this template; please protect to make sure that doesn't happen.Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection Dispute, User re-including links to external harassment.Sceptre (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I took a quick look at the link, and maybe I've missed something, but I don't see anything bad on it. We have whole articles devoted to what you're describing. While that doesn't make such activity appropriate, I don't see the problem with this link. Stop edit warring on the guys userpage, please. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anonymous (dynamic) IP editor (User talk:121.222.234.76 and others) ignoring consensus, previously discussed on ANI. Editor refuses to accept consensus on talk page, responds with abuse to attempts to discuss on his/her talk page. Article has previously been fully protected due to editors reverting this dynamic IP; request semi-protection in order to prevent IP editing and hopefully force them to discuss the matter on the talk page.  This flag once was red  11:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Very little activity since I protected it for 3 days on 26 June. Relist if it becomes a problem. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite semi-protection continued acts of vandalism by reverted IP user vandals. Rror (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected indefinitely. Thanks for your continued efforts. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , Hi Vis Image, Shown on Main Page..StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 10:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: No need. It's fully protected at the Commons, and it's fully protected here because it's transcluded onto the Main Page. Nobody can overwrite it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupid Me! I forgot about Commons. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not your fault. Generally Main Page images should be temporarily uploaded here, and fully protected locally. That's what I was doing when I looked at the Commons, but it's protected with cascading protection onto a local page there. It's impossible to overwrite, there or here. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I wanted to request that the article entitled Liverpool, be semi-protected. The article has been the victim of repetitive vandalism in the past. Also, when you look at the Manchester page, also a city in the UK, this page is protected. I think it is only fair that Liverpool is protected in the same way. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GBT/C 09:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indefinite create-protection , This has been recreated this twice, despite the movie having no official title and this being a bad article name irregardless. It is always full of rumors and fake info. Requesting page creation protection to put a stop to the silliness, at least under this name..-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

    Done GBT/C 09:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Repeated vandalism by various IP addresses, one of which left a promise on my talk page[1] to continue to do so. Risker (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - 10 days. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (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.

    Request unprotection: As Spartaz has now vanished, and there was an inconclusive discussion on AN/I and the article's TP, I am again requesting unprotection and agree not to replace the removed material without consensus. I still believe, as I have written on the TP, that Spartaz misused his tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. He quoted a BLP concern, but as I pointed out many times (and no one contradicted) WP:BLP allows for primary sources when the source is written by the subject of the article. The primary source used for the material removed was de Bono's website, and therefore perfectly acceptable for an article about him. (A person cannot sue Wikipedia for repeating something that he himself said or wrote, even if it shows him in a bad light or highlights something that someone else said that does so.) Whether or not the material should have been included on other grounds could well have been debated (and indeed the quality of the whole article is substandard), but I believe the page protection was done hastily and ill-advisedly and should be rescinded. Thank you..Harry the Dog WOOF 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Request unprotection: Full protection is perhaps a bit much for a current-event article; the "edit warring" cited as protect reason does not seem extensive, and can probably be remedied with a few friendly reminders to the few parties involved to take advantage of the talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected - Recent protection, will expire in 2 days, and there was quite a bit of edit warring going on. I would like to see how the protecting admin, PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), responds to the message on his talk page before taking any action. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant 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.

    Please insert two names: Angelique Carrington, Tamara Harrington. --202.67.100.90 (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    indefinite semi-protection , I want my userpage to be semi-pp because someone might vandalize this page in the future, plus this page has been vandalized by two users, around a week ago..Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    temporary full protection Vandalism, Sock puppet and Anon IPs removing content.Bidgee (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined See my notes below (Ian Sinclair). caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Sock puppets and Anon IPs removing content..Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined See my notes below (Ian Sinclair). caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection , 1.The article has been subject to long dispute resolution discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheylanli_tribe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sheylanli and anons don't do any helpful edit..Gülməmməd Talk 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - Only one IP edit in the last month or so, so semi protection would not be merited. VegaDark (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Sock puppets and Anon IPs removing content. I don't like requesting this but this ATM is the only thing that will work for now. .Bidgee (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined See my notes below (Ian Sinclair). caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Sock puppets and Anon IPs removing content. .Bidgee (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The vandalism appears to have subsided, and most of the IPs/socks have been blocked. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 06:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Anon attacks die down for an hour or so and also the anon is just getting new IP's and doing the same which makes IP blocking pointless. Bidgee (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PJ targets pretty well any Aussie article. If we protect one, he'll move onto another. I think we're better off doing a range block than reactive page protection and/or "whack-a-mole" blocks. If it starts up again, I'd suggest reporting it to WP:ANI and requesting a range block. Cheers, caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 06:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Heavy 4chan vandalism ongoing. Dureo (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done.. VegaDark (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Anonymous IP's keep reverting an unsourced addition, without discussing it, and accusing me of being a vandal Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The IP was adding correct information, I think you should have search for reference before reverting continually. It is not too difficult. [2] :) Please don't bite the newbies and be more careful next time. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus isn't on me to cite a source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You really shouldn't remove materials from any articles without making sure they are unsourcable. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. AFD tags tend to disappear quite often. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - Appears to be the action of an IP and one user (likely the same person), so protection is not necessary. The IP has been blocked and the user has been given a final warning. If they remove the notice again, report them at WP:AIV. VegaDark (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Heavy IP vandalism this month.CCG (T-C) 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - 6 weeks. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect - There is a high level of IP vandalism (Some IPs keep removing informations or just blank a section), and it's getting really annoying to have to revert edits all the time... Thanks. HellDragon (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - 5 days. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protected Dispute, requesting semi-protection because of ongoing vandalism and unknown IP address users de-contributing to the article. I am requesting that only established users may change the article. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. - I assume you mean Kosovo rather than Kosova? Kosava is a redirect, and hasn't been edited in nearly 4 months, so if that is what you meant, then the request is declined. If you did in fact mean Kosovo, then the page is already semi-protected indefinitely, so there is nothing to change. VegaDark (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize on my arrogance, I meant permanant protection. The page is being changed always by users which are unknown and they only contribute to nPOV as opposed to neutrality of information. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, it already is permanantly semi-protected. If you mean you want permanant full protection, that is declined. We virtually never indefinitely fully protect any page, and the history does not look like full protection is justified at this time. VegaDark (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Request Unprotection - Just perusing through pages and I saw this. The page has been protected since March 27. The protecting admin, User:Slambo, states on his userpage that he is currently on a vacation, so I presumed that it would be better to bring this here. Initially protected due to high vandalism from IPs. Mastrchf (t/c) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected - Seems reasonable, original expiry was 6 months from protection, which is quite long for protecting a page for the first time. Hopefully it has been long enough. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Request Unprotection - Duck has been semi-protected for over 6 months now. Contacted the protecting admin on 7/4/2008 with no response. 71.231.177.64 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - I see sleepers. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 00:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect - The same unsourced or poorly sourced tabloid trash (that she is dating Lindsey Lohan) has been added 18 times during the past month, 16 of those by anons. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 8.5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=225221376"